1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND SELF-

EFFICACY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS: A QUANTITATIVE

CORRELATIONAL STUDY

by

Laura Elizabeth Sinkonis

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

2018

2

ABSTRACT

Teacher attrition is a worldwide problem. Teachers leave education for reasons other than

retirement, and many retire before the generally accepted retirement age of 65. Further, special

education teachers are at an even higher risk of premature exit than their general education

counterparts. Self-efficacy is related to teacher burnout and other reasons for leaving the

profession. One missing piece in the literature is role of sense of community in special education

on teachers’ self-efficacy. The purpose of this correlational study is to investigate possible

predictive relationships between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education

teachers. Further, relationships between group identity and self-efficacy and shared domain and

self-efficacy were studied. Two hundred special education teachers from a Mid-Atlantic state

were surveyed using the Sense of Community in School Scale and the Teachers’ Sense of

Efficacy Scale. Pearson’s r was used to identify the correlations. The results of the study

indicated a small to moderate positive relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy.

Keywords: Sense of Community, Self-Efficacy, Special Education, Sense of Community

in School Scale, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale

3

Dedication

This dissertation, my doctoral journey, and my life are dedicated to my Lord and

Savior, Jesus Christ, without Whom I would be nothing. God, my Savior, supported me with

ideas, clarity, and wisdom. Thank you, Jesus, for your provision.

4

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to my husband, Steve, for his unfailing support and encouragement.

Thanks to my children, David, Kristina, and Michael for deferring use of the computer and their

uncomplaining support of me. Finally, thanks to my parents for their excitement of this endeavor.

5

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 9

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 11

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 11

Background ....................................................................................................................... 11

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 16

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 18

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 18

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 20

Null Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 20

Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 22

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 22

Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 22

Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................... 22

Sense of Community ............................................................................................. 27

Related Literature .............................................................................................................. 28

Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................... 28

6

Sense of Community ............................................................................................. 41

Special Education Teachers................................................................................... 49

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 58

Design ................................................................................................................................ 58

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 58

Null Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 58

Participants and Setting ..................................................................................................... 59

Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 59

Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 61

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 64

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 64

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 64

Null Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 64

Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 65

Results ............................................................................................................................... 72

Null Hypothesis One ............................................................................................. 72

Null Hypothesis Two............................................................................................. 74

Null Hypothesis Three........................................................................................... 77

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 80

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 80

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 82

7

Implications ....................................................................................................................... 82

Limitations......................................................................................................................... 84

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 85

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 87

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 98

8

List of Tables

Table 1 Descriptives for All Teachers Sense of Community in School Scale ……..……………..67

Table 2 Descriptives for All Teachers Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale ………..………………..67

Table 3 Descriptives for Elementary Sense of Community in School Scale …….………...……..69

Table 4 Descriptives for Elementary Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short …….……………..69

Table 5 Descriptives for High School Sense of Community in School Scale ………...…………..71

Table 6 Descriptives for High School Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short ………...………..71

Table 7 Correlations for Special Education Teachers …………………..………………………..72

Table 8 Correlations for High School Special Education Teachers …………………….………..75

Table 9 Correlations for Elementary Special Education Teachers …………………...…………..77

9

List of Figures

Figure 1 Histogram of SCSS Total Score for All Teachers ……………………………………...73

Figure 2 Histogram of TSES Total Score for All Teachers ……………………………………...73

Figure 3 Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for All Teachers ………………………....74

Figure 4 Histogram of SCSS Total Score for High School Teachers ……………………….…...75

Figure 5 Histogram of TSES Total Score for High School Teachers ……………………….…...76

Figure 6 Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for High School Teachers ………….…....76

Figure 7 Histogram of SCSS Total Score for Elementary Teachers ………………………...…...78

Figure 8 Histogram of TSES Total Score for Elementary Teachers …………………..…….…...78

Figure 9 Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for Elementary Teachers ………………...79

10

List of Abbreviations

Group Identity (GI)

English as a Second Language (ESL)

Emotional Safety (ES)

Functional behavior assessments (FBA)

Individualized Education Program (IEP)

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Interactional Repertoire (IR)

Manifestation Determination (MD)

Meaningful Relationships (MR)

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES)

Reevaluation Report (RR)

Shared Domain (SD)

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES)

The Sense of Community in School Scale (SCSS)

Tolerance for Individual Differences (TID)

11

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

Introduced in this chapter is the study investigating whether there is a relationship between

sense of community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. The researcher provides

background regarding teacher turnover and burnout and the consequences, as well as an overview

of the ideas of sense of community and teacher self-efficacy. The problem and purpose of the

study, as well as its significance are presented.

Background

Teacher turnover and teacher burnout are worldwide concerns (Aloe, Amo, & Shanahan,

2014; Hong, 2012; Simon & Johnson, 2013). Ten percent of teachers beginning their careers in

2007-2008 did not teach in 2008-2009, 15 percent of novice teachers in 2009-2010 did not teach

in 2010-2011, and 17 percent of new teachers in 2010-2011 did not teach the next school year

(Gray & Taie, 2015). Special education teachers are leaving schools due to early retirement and

resigning at alarming rates (McKnab, 1995; National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, 1990; Steinhardt, Smith Jaggars, Faulk, & Gloria, 2011). High rates of teacher

turnover and burnout are detrimental to students because it presumably lowers student

performance, educational quality, and is organizationally disruptive. For instance, schools with

high turnover have a larger percentage of new teachers who, as a result of being inexperienced,

are less effective than more seasoned teachers (Sass, Flores, Claeys, & Perez, 2012).

Additionally, high teacher turnover results in a lack of continuity of instruction and stable staff

relationships, which are needed for a strong sense of community. Finally, schools with high

turnover must continually recruit and train more teachers to take the places of those who left

leading to classroom and school instability (Simon & Johnson, 2013).

12

Because teacher turnover and attrition are frequently caused by burnout, further study is

needed to investigate the causes and preventative measures teachers and administrators can take

to avert burnout and attrition. Maslach and Leiter (1997) defined burnout as a group of symptoms

related to emotional exhaustion, cynicism, depersonalization, and dissatisfaction, which make

professionals feel as if they can no longer give of themselves at a psychological level. Burnout

and teacher self-efficacy have been linked in numerous studies. Higher self-efficacy relates to

less burnout and attrition (Aloe et al., 2014; Høigaard, Giske, & Sundsli, 2012; Hong, 2012;

Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014).

Self-efficacy is teachers’ beliefs in their ability to affect the expected outcome of student

performance (Isbell & Szabo, 2015). Rooted in social learning theory, behaviorism, locus-of-

control theory, and social-cognitive theory, Bandura (1977) developed a general theory of self-

efficacy in 1977. While dependent upon an abundance of variables and influenced by many

factors, personal self-efficacy determines what activities individuals will seek out or avoid

(Bandura, 1977). Those with strong self-efficacy for certain tasks will seek out those tasks.

Conversely, those with low self-efficacy will avoid tasks in which they do not feel able to meet

demands or expectations (Bandura, 1977).

Although teacher self-efficacy does not directly correlate to student performance

(Bandura, 2012), it is a component in student outcomes. Teachers with high self-efficacy will

persevere with difficult students (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Armor et al., 1976; Ashton

& Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Podell & Soodak, 1993;

Ross, 1992; Soodak & Podell, 1993). Additionally, self-efficacy affects teacher performance in

better classroom management, improved instructional strategies, and increased student

engagement (Allinder, 1994; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, &

13

Zellman, 1977; Chu, 2011; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988;

Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Further, Allinder (1995) found that special education teachers

with high self-efficacy set higher goals for their students than do special education teachers with

lower self-efficacy. In addition, there was a significant relationship between teachers with high

self-efficacy and their students’ scores on curriculum-based math measures (Allinder, 1995).

There is a relationship between high teacher self-efficacy on student achievement but not a direct

effect.

Since Bandura’s (1977) introduction of self-efficacy, researchers studied teacher self-

efficacy and found numerous benefits of strong teacher self-efficacy to both teachers and

students. Teacher benefits of strong self-efficacy include lower rates of burnout (Aloe et al.,

2014; Sarıçam & Sakız, 2014), increased perseverance and resilience (Ashton & Webb, 1986),

and better planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). Although individual self-efficacy does not

directly relate to student achievement (Bandura, 2012), collective efficacy (the perceived ability

of a group) does influence student achievement (Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012). Teachers

with strong self-efficacy are more willing to consider new ideas to help their students (Berman et

al., 1977; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Studies show strong relationships between

effective teachers with strong self-efficacy and student benefits of increased motivation (Midgley,

Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), improved self-efficacy (Anderson et al., 1988), and other student

results, such as higher reading levels and student achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Ashton &

Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992). Further, teachers with strong self-efficacy

are less critical (Ashton & Webb, 1986), more willing to invest time in struggling students

(Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and more willing to be involved in decision-making and improved

school climate (Moore & Esselman, 1992). Additionally, these teachers are less likely to refer

14

difficult or culturally- and linguistically-diverse students to special education (Chu, 2011; Meijer

& Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). Therefore, strong teacher

efficacy and self-efficacy benefits teachers, students, and the school community as a whole.

Self-efficacy theory derives from behaviorism, locus-of-control theory, social cognitive

theory, and social learning theory (Isbell & Szabo, 2015). Skinner (1948) proposed the

behaviorist theory. Skinner believed that, if used properly, the use of positive reinforcement

would produce successful students. From behaviorist theory, Rotter (1954) introduced locus-of-

control theory. Locus-of-control theory denotes that personal belief leads to specific behavior.

Bandura (1977) added behaviorism and locus-of-control theory to his social cognitive and social

learning theories and produced self-efficacy theory. This study will focus on Bandura’s self-

efficacy theory.

Bandura (1986) explained the relationship of self-efficacy and social cognitive theory.

The ability to anticipate consequences is one cognitive origin of motivation. Individuals will

engage in activities in which they predict favorable outcomes but avoid pursuits where they

foresee failure. Another cognitive origin of motivation is making self-rewarding choices

(Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1977) stated, “. . . the concept of self-efficacy is assigned a central

role, for analyzing changes achieved in fearful and avoidant behavior” (p. 193). An individual’s

self-efficacy predicts future performance because self-efficacy provides an expectation of success

or failure, and those expectations determine how much effort the individual makes. Further, the

higher the self-efficacy, the greater effort will be made (Bandura, 1977).

In addition to self-efficacy, this study investigated sense of community and how it relates

to self-efficacy. At creation, God stated that is was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18

15

New International Version [NIV]). Solomon, the wisest man ever, expounded on the benefits of

not being alone.

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them

falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help

them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep

warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of

three strands is not quickly broken. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 NIV)

When Jesus began His ministry on earth, He invited a group of followers to be part of a

community with Him, the 12 disciples and 120 other close followers (Mark 3:13; Acts 1:15 NIV).

Additionally, the early church provided a close community which met spiritual, physical, and

emotional needs (Acts 2:42-47 NIV). Community is a concept God identified as a human need

since the beginning of time and demonstrated throughout the Bible. God made the first

community, inspired writers of the Bible to tell of the benefits of community, and lived in

community Himself.

The idea of sense of community, also called psychological sense of community, began in

1986 with the work of McMillan and Chavis (Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008). Sense of

community is a four-aspect theory that includes membership, influence, integration and

fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Membership includes

the concepts of boundaries, security, belonging and identification, personal investment, and a

common symbol (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The notion of influence is bi-directional. The

group and individuals consent to join and influence each other at the same time to create a bond

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). A strong community provides reinforcement and fulfillment of

individuals’ needs. Status, community success, and member competence provide effective

16

community reinforcement. Individual values drive the group’s ability to prioritize and organize

need fulfillment (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Shared emotional connection relates to the quantity

and quality of individual interaction within the group to build strong bonds. Individual and group

interactions need definition, purpose, and closure or the bond will weaken. Difficulty or tragedy,

as well as common religious beliefs increase the community bond. Finally, individual investment

and intimacy increases group cohesiveness (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Teachers’ perceived sense of community directly relates to their self-efficacy (Collie,

Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012). Strong sense of community has been shown to

produce high self-efficacy, which can improve teacher performance and persistence as well as

improve student outcomes (Aloe et al., 2014; Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012; Sarıçam

& Sakız, 2014; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001). The present study provided further research in

the relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy by focusing on the educational

subgroup of special education teachers.

Problem Statement

Self-efficacy studies have been conducted for a myriad of skills. Self-efficacy studies in

education address student and teacher feelings about technology, math, science, distance learning,

response-to-intervention, and inclusion (Isbell & Szabo, 2015; Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel, &

Malinen, 2012). Self-efficacy in special education teachers has been linked to higher goal setting

and a relationship to higher curriculum based measure scores (Allinder, 1995). Additionally,

special education teachers with more interactions with persons with disabilities, teacher training,

and teaching experience have higher self-efficacy than their colleagues with less (Malinen et al.,

2013).

17

Researchers studied the concept of sense of community in a variety of circumstances. In

education, many studies are related to online learning (Kuo, Walker, Schroder, & Belland, 2014;

Rovai & Gallien, 2005; Rovai, 2002). More related to the current study, Simon and Johnson

(2013) found that the high teacher turnover rate in urban and minority school districts is an escape

from difficult working conditions, most importantly, collegial relationships. Participant teachers

viewed cooperation and competence in collegial and mentorship relationships as the most

important aspect of education that kept teachers in their positions (Simon & Johnson, 2013).

Research showing relationships between self-efficacy and sense of community is limited.

Vieno, Santinello, Pastore, & Perkins (2007) found a connection between school sense of

community and self-efficacy in Italian early adolescents. Studies of professional learning

communities show relationships between sense of community and self-efficacy. Professional

learning communities are groups of teachers and administrators focused on ensuring students

learn, creating a culture of collaboration for school improvement and removing barriers to

success, and focusing on results (DuFour, 2004). Mintzes, Marcum, Messerschmidt-Yates, and

Mark (2013) found an increase in self-efficacy in elementary science teachers who participated

in professional learning communities. However, it was difficult for this researcher to find a

direct link between sense of community and self-efficacy, especially in the population of special

education teachers, due to the scarcity of such studies. Additionally, Rashidi and Mognadam

(2014) found conflict with earlier studies relating to teacher self-efficacy and student satisfaction

and achievement. Maslow (1943) described in his hierarchy of needs theory that a sense of

belonging is needed before feelings of esteem and self-actualization. Therefore, it is reasonable

to believe that a feeling of belonging, or sense of community, precedes feelings of self-worth or

self-efficacy. The problem is that further research is needed in finding and studying other causes

18

of strong self-efficacy as called for by Rashidi & Modhadam (2014). This study aimed to find a

direct relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education teachers.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine what the relationship

is between special education teachers’ perceived sense of community and their self-efficacy. The

criterion variable is self-efficacy, and the predictor variable is perceived sense of community.

Self-efficacy in teachers is their belief in their ability to affect the expected outcome of student

performance (Isbell & Szabo, 2015). Sense of community is a four-aspect phenomenon, which

includes membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The population studied was special education teachers from

suburban and suburban-rural school districts in a Mid-Atlantic state. The researcher used the

Sense of Community in School Scale (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2012) and the Teacher Sense of

Efficacy Scale, Short (Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001) to measure sense of community and self-

efficacy in the study sample. The researcher investigated the predictive relationship of sense of

community (predictor variable) on teacher self-efficacy (criterion variable) by focusing on the

unexplored population of special education teachers.

Significance of the Study

Simon and Johnson (2013) found that the high teacher turnover rate in urban and minority

school districts is not a result of teachers fleeing their students but of an escape from difficult

working conditions. Working conditions that promote retention directly relate to positive

relationships between teachers (Billingsley & Cross, 1991; Sass et al., 2012; Simon & Johnson,

2013). These relationships create a high sense of community. Types of relationship building,

19

such as collaboration and support networks, affect self-efficacy and improve sense of community

(Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012).

Strong teacher self-efficacy has benefits to all school stakeholders. Benefits to teachers

include lower incidence of burnout (Aloe et al., 2014; Sarıçam & Sakız, 2014), greater

perseverance (Ashton & Webb, 1986), openness to new ideas (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey,

1988; Stein & Wang, 1988), and better planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). Student

benefits include increased motivation (Midgley et al., 1989), greater self-efficacy (Anderson et

al., 1988), and less critical teachers, which will promote better self-esteem in students and inspire

them to work to the best of their abilities (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Further, school districts as a

whole benefit when teachers feel connected and important because they are willing to persevere

through difficult circumstances for the benefit of the school and students. This present study is

significant because administrators can facilitate opportunities for building community that in turn

will improve teacher self-efficacy, which will improve the whole school system.

If the results of this study show a relationship between sense of community and self-

efficacy, school administrators can use the information to cut down on teacher turnover. District

administrators and special educators can make an effort to develop a sense of community in

schools by increasing the quality of mentorship programs, establishing professional learning

communities, and allowing for improved collaboration between teachers. When a higher sense

of community is established, stronger self-efficacy will follow, which will have positive

consequences such as less burnout, better classroom management (Aloe et al., 2014; Sarıçam &

Sakız, 2014), higher job satisfaction and teaching efficacy (Collie et al., 2012), and possibly,

higher student achievement (Moolenaar et al., 2012).

20

It is assumed that the participants answered the surveys honestly. Surveys were

anonymous and confidential. Teachers in more than one school district were surveyed, so

demographic information did not provide sufficient clues to determine who completed which

survey. This study was limited by the convenience sample. Study findings cannot be

generalized to populations outside the United States, the Mid-Atlantic state from which the

surveys were garnered, or urban or high minority or low socioeconomic status school districts.

Further, participants volunteered to participate in the study, and responses may have been tainted

by an especially good or bad circumstance for participating teachers. The findings in this study

are limited to correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy, not causation. The

results of this study cannot be generalized beyond this present study.

Research Questions

RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

perceived sense of community within the school and their sense of self-efficacy?

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in high school special education teachers?

RQ3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in elementary special education teachers?

Null Hypotheses

The null hypotheses for this study are:

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of Community in

School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the Teacher Sense

of Efficacy Scale, Short.

21

H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between high school special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short.

H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between elementary special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short.

Definitions

1. Burnout - Burnout is a group of symptoms related to emotional exhaustion, cynicism,

depersonalization, and dissatisfaction, which make professionals feel as if they can no

longer give of themselves at a psychological level (Maslach, & Leiter, 1997).

2. Self-efficacy - Self-efficacy is teachers’ belief in their ability to affect the expected

outcome of student performance (Isbell & Szabo, 2015).

3. Sense of community - Sense of community is a four-aspect phenomenon which includes

membership, a perception of belonging, influence, a sense of meaning, integration and

fulfillment of needs, support and benefit, and emotional connection, shared history, time,

and experiences (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

4. Special education - Special education is specially designed instruction to meet the unique

needs of a child with a disability, which is free to parents (Individuals with Disabilities

Act [IDEA], 2004).

22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

Teacher burnout, early retirement, and leaving the field are concerns all over the world,

not just in the United States (Aloe et al., 2014; Hong, 2012; Simon & Johnson, 2013). Special

education teachers have difficult jobs and, therefore, higher rates of burnout and attrition than

even that of general education teachers (McKnab, 1995). Sense of community in school is related

to high self-efficacy and less burnout and lower rates of attrition when teachers perceive high

levels of positive school climate, social-emotional learning (Collie et al., 2012), and teacher

collaboration (Moolenaar et al., 2012). High self-efficacy, in addition to many other benefits, is

also related to fewer burnout symptoms in teachers (Aloe et al., 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,

2014), lower rates of intention to quit, and higher job satisfaction (Høigaard et al., 2012).

Professional literature conclusively links sense of community to self-efficacy, but there is a gap in

the literature showing how sense of community and self-efficacy affect special education

teachers.

Theoretical Framework

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy theory derives from behaviorism, locus-of-control theory, social cognitive

theory, and social learning theory (Isbell & Szabo, 2015). Skinner (1948) proposed behaviorist

theory. Behaviorism is the science of behavior. Skinner believed that positive or negative

consequences for actions will shape behavior, and, if used properly, the use of positive

reinforcement would produce successful students. From behaviorist theory, Rotter (1954)

introduced social learning theory. Social learning theory focuses the fact that primary ways of

behaving are learned in social situations. Later, Rotter (1966) introduced locus-of-control theory.

23

According to Adeyemi-Bello (2001), “Locus of control is the extent to which individuals attribute

the events in their lives to actions or forces beyond their control” (p. 25). Bandura (1977) added

behaviorism, social learning theory, and locus-of-control theory to his social cognitive theory and

produced self-efficacy theory.

In an effort to unite the behavior change theories, Bandura (1977) developed the theory of

self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) looked at efficacy expectations, its dimensions and sources, and the

cognitive processing of information to develop his self-efficacy theory. In his examination of the

dimensions of efficacy expectations, Bandura (1977) studied people’s individual impression of

mastery in a particular area rather than the ideal. Bandura (1977) found that self-efficacy

expectations are not always the same in the areas of magnitude, generality, and strength.

Additionally, Bandura (1977) delineated four sources of self-efficacy expectations as performance

accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.

Previous research has shown that learning and behavior change are cognitive processes.

Behaviorism relates how learning and shaping of behavior comes from cognitively processing

consequences. Learners (not exclusively students or humans) determine through consequences

what to do in order to “. . . gain beneficial outcomes and to avoid punishing ones” (Bandura,

1977, p. 192). Thus, seeking or avoiding certain consequences shapes behavior. In addition to

consequences, goal setting and reactions to self-evaluation mediate other cognitive processes that

motivate behavior change. Motivation of the individual to anticipate rewards or penalties allow

individuals to increase the level of self-expected performance. Therefore, two cognitive behavior

change processes are consequences and the self-motivation to achieve higher levels of

performance.

24

Efficacy expectations are“. . . the conviction that one can successfully execute the

behavior required to produce the outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). As such, self-efficacy, or “.

. . expectations of personal mastery” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193) will influence individual decisions

to begin and persevere with particular tasks. Therefore, self-efficacy is a primary motivator of

task choice, effort expended, and persistence toward completion (Bandura, 1977; Tschannen-

Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Three varying dimensions of efficacy expectations shown in past research include

magnitude, generality, and strength (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy depends on the magnitude of

the task. Self-efficacy may be high for simple tasks but diminish for moderate or high difficulty

activities. Self-efficacy also fluctuates depending on the specificity or generality of tasks.

Finally, self-efficacy ranges from weak to strong. Those with weak self-efficacy are more likely

to end a task, and those with strong self-efficacy are more likely to persevere when faced with

difficulty (Bandura, 1977). For example, students who think they are not good at making

speeches or writing papers will avoid these activities, if possible, and if not possible, they will

throw something together just to be done. Similarly, special education teachers who do not think

they are good at completing paperwork will not do it at all or do it quickly but not necessarily

well.

Sources of self-efficacy include performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences,

verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Performance accomplishments are experiences of

personal achievement. These accomplishments, or lack thereof, increase or decrease self-

efficacy. Performance accomplishments are the strongest sources of self-efficacy expectations

because they are first-hand experiences. The accomplishments are realized through participating

25

in experiences, performance desensitization and exposure, and self-instruction performance

(Bandura, 1977; Conley, 2015).

Next, vicarious experiences are less able to influence self-efficacy than performance

accomplishments and are not used in isolation. Vicarious experiences are occurrences where

individuals witness others partake in certain activities without detrimental outcomes. Vicarious

experiences occur through live or symbolic modeling. These experiences can bolster willingness

to initiate and persist in difficult circumstances, thus affecting self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977,

Conley, 2016). For instance, in education, newer teachers spend time observing veteran teachers.

The act of observing can increase the newer teachers’ self-efficacy.

Another weaker source of self-efficacy expectations is verbal persuasion. Verbal

persuasion includes suggestion, exhortation, self-instruction, and interpretive treatments. The

purpose of verbal persuasion is to raise the self-efficacy of others. Unfortunately, if personal

failure occurs after persuasion, the persuader loses credibility (Bandura, 1977, Conley, 2015).

This source is like having a cheerleader who encourages when the team is doing well and when

there is no hope for victory. Teacher self-efficacy increases when colleagues or supervisors

praise teachers’ effectiveness.

The last source of self-efficacy, emotional arousal, is able to influence a person’s self-

efficacy when dealing with difficult situations. Heightened states of emotion serve to cripple

performance and exacerbate fear and anxiety. Arresting emotional arousal comes from

identifying fear or anxiety triggers, relaxation or biofeedback, and symbolic desensitization and

exposure. Some studies have used mislabeling of fear symptoms to make performers believe

what they experienced was not anxiety and that they could act with boldness. However, this

trickery is only able to work on those with mild fears. Those with high anxiety would ascribe

26

their fears to extraneous sources. Reduced fears will allow performers to act, and when they

experience success, self-efficacy will increase (Bandura, 1977; Conley, 2015). In the life of

teachers, a certain student, subject, or class may cause a heightened state of arousal due to low

teacher mastery or behavior problems. However, if aroused teachers use calming techniques or

positive self-talk, they can deescalate and believe they are able to meet expectations.

Foundational theories differ on their perspectives of the origin and motivation of self-

efficacy. Expectancy theory states that self-efficacy evolves solely through the performers’

actions. Social learning theory asserts that self-efficacy arises from various direct and indirect

experiences (Bandura, 1977; Conley, 2015). Regarding the process of achieving self-efficacy,

motivation theory and social learning theory are in opposition. Motivation theory, though not

detailed enough for full comparison with other theories and their thoughts related to self-efficacy,

maintains that new experiences stimulate efficacy motivation and continue when inquiring and

exploring behaviors cause more fresh experiences, thus continuing to spiral onward toward self-

efficacy. In social learning theory, self-efficacy predicts the incidence, generality, and tenacity of

coping in difficult activities. Therefore, “people will approach, explore, and try to deal with

situations within their self-perceived capabilities, but they will avoid transactions with stressful

aspects of their environment they perceive as exceeding their availability” (Bandura, 1977, p.

203).

Finally, self-efficacy is dependent on whether the performer attributes their success to

ability or effort. Performance success through little effort increases self-efficacy because the

performer infers greater ability. However, performance success brought about from great effort

implies less ability, and, therefore, lower self-efficacy. Additionally, success at easy tasks does

27

not affect feelings of self-efficacy, because those experiencing minor setbacks will increase self-

efficacy if there is progress over the long term (Bandura, 1977).

Conley (2015) echoed Bandura’s (1977) findings in a study about principals’ and

teachers’ beliefs about self-efficacy on student learning. Mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, social praise, and physiological experiences are all ways to improve self-efficacy

(Conley, 2015). Teachers with high self-efficacy have greater motivation, expectations, and

feelings of responsibility for student achievement. Teachers with low self-efficacy shift blame for

poor performance, do not persevere in delivering good instruction, and are not motivated to

improve (Conley, 2015).

Bandura (1986) explained the relationship of self-efficacy and social cognitive theory.

The ability to predict future consequences is one cognitive origin of motivation. Another

cognitive origin of motivation is making self-rewarding choices (Bandura, 1977). “. . . the

concept of self-efficacy is assigned a central role, for analyzing changes achieved in fearful and

avoidant behavior” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Self-efficacy predicts future performance since self-

efficacy provides an expectation of success or failure in activities and expectations influence how

much effort is put forth. Further, the higher the self-efficacy, the greater effort will be made

(Bandura, 1977). Additionally, when assessing self-efficacy, measures should be environment

and activity specific (Bandura, 1986), such as teacher self-efficacy scales to measure the self-

efficacy of teachers.

Sense of Community

The idea of sense of community, also called psychological sense of community, began in

1986 with the work of McMillan and Chavis (Peterson et al., 2008). Sense of community is a

four-aspect theory which includes membership, a perception of belonging, influence, a sense of

28

meaning, integration and fulfillment of needs, support and benefit, and emotional connection,

shared history, time, and experiences (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Membership includes the concepts of boundaries, security, belonging and identification,

personal investment, and a common symbol (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The notion of

influence, which affects a community member’s sense of community, works in two directions.

The individual influences group practice, and the group influences individual behaviors

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Individuals join groups in which they can make a difference. The

strength of the group-individual bond includes conformity and community. The group and

individuals consent to join and influence each other at the same time to create a bond (McMillan

& Chavis, 1986). A strong community provides reinforcement and fulfillment of individuals’

needs. Status, community success, and member competence provide effective community

reinforcement. Communities fill many needs. Individual values drive the group’s ability to

prioritize and organize need fulfillment (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Shared emotional

connection relates to the quantity and quality of individual interaction within the group to build

strong bonds. Individual and group interactions need definition, purpose, and closure or the bond

will weaken. Difficulty or tragedy, as well as spirituality shared by a group increase the

community bond. Finally, individual investment and intimacy increases group cohesiveness

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This present study will evaluate the sense of community in special

education teachers and look for a relationship to self-efficacy.

Related Literature

Self-Efficacy

Although individual teacher self-efficacy does not directly relate to student achievement

(Bandura, 2012), self-efficacy and collective efficacy (the ability of a group) do influence student

29

achievement (Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Moolenaar et al.,

2012). Teacher self-efficacy is typically based on teachers’ perception of their abilities in the

areas of classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement (Shaukat &

Iqbal, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Classroom management refers to the teacher’s

ability to establish and maintain order so that learning can be maximized (Emmer & Stough,

2001). Instructional strategies refer to the ways teachers present information. These strategies

could include discovery, explicit instruction, and lecture. Student engagement is the extent to

which students are emotionally involved in the instruction and learning (Skinner & Belmont,

1993). Perceived ability in these areas influence teachers’ overall job satisfaction.

In order to determine whether teacher self-efficacy was an American, Western, or global

concept, Vieluf, Kunter, & van de Vijver (2013) detailed the differences and similarities in the

concepts of self-efficacy in 23 countries and analyzed the means of each country’s teacher self-

efficacy in relation to cultural values. Vieluf, Kunter, & van de Vijver (2013) related teacher self-

efficacy to the four common components of job satisfaction, structuring teaching practices,

student orientation teaching practices, and enhanced activities teaching practices. They found

correlations between teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction and between self-efficacy and

structuring, student orientation, and enhanced activities teaching practices among countries.

Thus, Vieluf et al. (2013) concluded that self-efficacy means the same thing in the different

countries studied.

In comparing the countries’ self-efficacy average scores, Vieluf et al. (2013) found

extreme variance with Norway to have the highest ranking by far and the Republic of Korea the

lowest. The results indicated that there was a negative correlation between self-efficacy and

collectivism, leading the researchers to conclude that in countries that value interdependence,

30

teachers report higher levels of self-efficacy. Additionally, modesty, collectivism, and extremity

scoring were related to each other and linked to self-efficacy. Vieluf et al. (2013) found that

while self-efficacy means the same thing in different countries, teachers in particular cultures rate

themselves differently. Lower mean scores in Korea and other collectivistic countries result from

extremity scoring related to modesty, rather than low self-efficacy.

Causes and detriments to teacher self-efficacy. Many situations or occurrences in

teachers’ lives enhance or prevent the development of high self-efficacy. School administrators

can help increase self-efficacy by providing teachers with autonomy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014)

and creating a positive school culture and climate (Conley, 2015). Teachers themselves can boost

their self-efficacy by mastering content and strategies (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Conversely,

toxic environments (Beavans, Bradshaw, Meich, & Leaf, 2007), lack of administrative support,

and conflict with students and colleagues lower self-efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016).

Therefore, through differing circumstances, teacher self-efficacy can be enhanced or diminished.

Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) found that autonomy and self-efficacy positively correlate.

Further, self-efficacy and autonomy were both positively related to engagement and job

satisfaction. Because autonomy provides flexibility to choose instructional strategies, it makes

teachers responsible for their choices and the consequences. Greater autonomy is then “. . .

strongly related to engagement and job satisfaction for high self-efficacy teachers” (Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2014, p. 70). Conley (2015) listed several ways to improve self-efficacy. First is to

experience mastery of teaching skills. Mastery of concepts, strategies, or techniques boosts the

feelings of ability to teach well. Watching and learning from others’ successes in similar

circumstances, affirmation from colleagues or superiors, and successful completion of

psychological exercises such as positive self-talk and relaxation techniques increase self-efficacy.

31

Autonomy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), mastery of teaching skills, observation, affirmation, and

positive thinking (Bandura, 1977; Conley, 2015) increase teacher self-efficacy.

Additionally, school climate and culture affect self-efficacy (Conley, 2015). Creation of a

positive school climate is the duty of the principal. Principals’ transformational leadership shapes

teachers commitment to the school due to the climate created by principals. The culture and

climate built by principals allows teaching teams to believe that they, as a teaching group, can

influence student achievement (Dumay & Galand, 2012). Good teaching follows a positive

school climate. A noxious situation lowers self-efficacy while a healthy culture has positive

influence on teacher self-efficacy (Beavans et al., 2007). In order to enhance school climate to

improve teacher self-efficacy, Conley (2015) recommended that principals and teachers have

input in school improvements and provide for practical needs and that principals are supported so

they can enable teachers to develop mastery.

Taking an opposite approach, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) looked at seven likely

stressors (discipline problems, time pressure, low student motivation, conflict with colleagues,

lack of supervisory support, value conflict, and student diversity) that relate to symptoms of

burnout and lower self-efficacy. They found that participants who experienced value conflict,

low student motivation, and lack of supervisory support also reported symptoms of burnout and

low self-efficacy. Therefore, teachers who experience the studied stressors are more likely to

have symptoms of burnout and have low self-efficacy.

Malinen et al. (2013) studied self-efficacy of teachers who taught students with disabilities

in special education schools, pullout classrooms, and in regular education settings in Bejing,

China, Eastern and Southwest Finland, and South Africa. The predictors of self-efficacy were

experience in teaching students with disabilities, teaching experience, interaction with people with

32

disabilities, and the amount of training related to inclusive education. The three aspects of self-

efficacy they investigated were instruction, behavior management, and collaboration.

Collaboration involved other teachers, parents, and other professionals.

Although the Malinen et al. (2013) study focused on other countries, many of the basic

special education concepts are similar to those in the currently or historically provided in the

United States. Special education services are provided for children with disabilities that affect

their success in school. Pennsylvania supports and services, like many other states, include

learning support, emotional support, autistic support, life skills support, multiple disability

support, and others (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Special

Education, 2008). School districts provide services to special education students in three general

settings. One is in the regular education setting, which is a classroom with typical students.

Another is pullout classrooms, where students with disabilities are “pulled-out” of the regular

classroom to receive specialized instruction. Yet another is a school whose sole population is

students with disabilities. School districts choose the placement depending on the severity of the

students’ disabilities.

The results from the teachers in China showed that teaching experience with students with

disabilities significantly affected their efficacy in instruction, collaboration, and in behavior

management. “Special education teachers considered themselves more efficacious in

collaboration, while the mainstream teachers felt they were more efficient in managing student

behavior than their colleagues in special education” (Malinen et al., 2013, p. 39). The researchers

plausibly explained the discrepancy between special education teachers and their mainstream

counterparts by the teaching context. The special education teachers worked with students who

were more profoundly affected by their disabilities, whereas the students in the mainstream

33

classrooms were less disabled and more able to follow rules and attend to instruction. It is more

difficult to teach and manage students with more severe disabilities; therefore, it is not surprising

that teachers of mildly disabled students would have higher self-efficacy than would teachers of

students with severe or profound disabilities.

In Finland, schools have provided inclusive education for many years as well as pullout

programs. Teachers from special education only schools were not included in the survey. Finnish

results showed that both experience teaching students with disabilities and the amount of training

related to inclusive education influenced all three self-efficacy factors. Notably, male teachers

rated themselves higher in their ability to prevent and manage student behavior problems than did

female teachers (Malinen et al., 2013). Because of Finland’s history of providing specialized

education opportunities for students with disabilities, Finnish teachers showed high self-efficacy.

In South Africa, few of the studied schools provided separate classes for students with

mild disabilities. Additionally, teachers from schools with only special needs students were

included in the study. The results from South Africa showed that both experience in teaching

students with disabilities and previous interactions with persons with disabilities affected all three

self-efficacy factors. Remarkably, older teachers showed higher self-efficacy for behavior

management than did their younger colleagues indicating that older teachers were able to get

students to follow school rules (Malinen et al., 2013).

Previous research shows numerous causes of higher self-efficacy in teachers. Autonomy

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), positive school climate and culture (Beavans et al., 2007; Conley,

2015), input into school improvements, and supervisory support (Conley, 2015) cause teachers to

have higher self-efficacy. General teaching experience, teaching and working with students with

disabilities, and pre-service and in-service training cause special educators to have higher self-

34

efficacy (Malinen et al., 2013). Clearly, mastery of teaching skills, watching and learning from

others, affirmation from colleagues and supervisors, and motivational strategies cause higher self-

efficacy (Conley, 2015). Conversely, a toxic school climate (Beavans et al., 2007), value

conflict, low student motivation, and lack of supervisor support decrease teacher self-efficacy

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016).

Teacher benefits of high self-efficacy. The main teacher benefits of high self-efficacy

are lower levels of burnout and increased job satisfaction. Aloe et al. (2014) found that when

teachers have good classroom management self-efficacy, they have lower levels of emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and (low sense of) personal accomplishment, three aspects of

burnout. Self-efficacy positively predicted job satisfaction and negatively predicted emotional

exhaustion (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014).

Høigaard et al. (2012) studied how teacher self-efficacy influences job satisfaction,

burnout, and the intention to quit. They found a negative correlation to self-efficacy and work

engagement and job burnout. Vigor, meaning “. . . mental resilience and energy while working,

and the willingness to invest effort in the work and persistence even in the face of difficulties”

(Høigaard et al., 2012, p. 350) and dedication were negative predictors to job burnout. Thus,

teachers with high self-efficacy are more satisfied with their jobs, have more vigor, fewer

symptoms of burnout, and do not intend to quit teaching.

Høigaard et al. (2012) also found that vigor is negatively related to job burnout and the

intention to quit but has little impact on job satisfaction. Additionally, they found that self-

efficacy and work engagement positively correlated to job satisfaction. Self-efficacy and work

engagement were negatively correlated to the intention to quit. Further, there is a negative

correlation between self-efficacy and work engagement and intention to quit. Logically, there is a

35

positive relationship between job burnout and intention to quit. Finally, they found that vigor and

dedication were negative predictors for intention to quit, yet, absorption, meaning the state of

being fully focused and attached to work, is a positive predictor to burnout and intention to quit

(Høigaard et al., 2012).

Additionally, Holzberger et al. (2013) and Klassen and Tze (2014) found that teachers

with higher self-efficacy had higher instructional quality. Holzberger et al. (2013) studied the

correlations between self-efficacy and the facets of instructional quality of cognitive activation,

classroom management, and individual learning support as rated by both the teachers and students

in short- and long-term time lapses. Study data showed positive correlations between teacher

self-efficacy and instructional quality as rated by both students and teachers at both times.

Intercorrelations within groups were different for students and teachers. For the short-term time,

teacher ratings only correlated two of the three components of instructional quality, cognitive

activation, and classroom management. For the long-term time, teacher ratings only correlated

cognitive activation and individual learning support, whereas student ratings for all aspects of

instructional quality were interrelated. Therefore, higher self-efficacy seems to lead to better

instruction.

Dicke et al. (2014) found evidence that classroom management self-efficacy relates to

classroom disruptions and emotional exhaustion. Their results showed that teachers with high

classroom management self-efficacy reported fewer classroom disruptions. Further, they found

that the number of classroom disturbances predicted emotional exhaustion. Therefore, high

classroom self-efficacy means fewer classroom disruptions, which, in turn, means less emotional

exhaustion.

36

Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) studied the predictability of stress and self-efficacy on

engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave teaching in Norwegian senior high

school teachers. They found that self-efficacy negatively correlated with emotional stress and

exhaustion. Alternately, they found that lack of supervisor support and confidence, low student

motivation, and value conflicts directly affected self-efficacy and engagement, which influenced

motivation to quit (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016).

School and student benefits of high teacher self-efficacy. Higher teacher self-efficacy

benefits students as well as teachers. Conley (2015) shared the benefits of positive self-efficacy

in teachers. Teachers with high self-efficacy are persistent in their drive to be effective in

teaching, regardless of background or learning difficulties. They develop positive relationships

with students. Teachers with high self-efficacy find ways to improve instruction to benefit all

students and have high motivation, expectations, and shared responsibility for student learning.

Conversely, teachers with poor self-efficacy exhibit less motivation and effort to provide strong

instruction, do not build relationships, blame others for difficulties, and are not self-motivated

(Conley, 2015).

Studies show strong relationships between having a teacher with strong self-efficacy and

increased student motivation (Midgley et al., 1989). These students also show improved self-

efficacy (Anderson et al., 1988), higher reading levels, and increased achievement (Armor et al.,

1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992). Additionally, Klassen and

Tze (2014) found in their meta-analysis of 43 studies moderate, yet significant, relationships

between teacher self-efficacy and student achievement levels. So, many students who have

teachers with high self-efficacy have greater motivation and higher levels of achievement.

37

Teachers with strong self-efficacy are more willing to consider new ideas to help their

students (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Additionally, teachers with

strong self-efficacy are less critical (Ashton & Webb, 1986) and more willing to invest time in

struggling students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Further, teachers with high self-efficacy are less

likely to refer difficult or culturally- and linguistically-diverse students to special education (Chu,

2011; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993).

In a study on resilience in new teachers, Hong (2012) found that teachers who left the field

were lacking in self-efficacy. Teachers leaving education specifically commented on having poor

classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers in this study with one difficult student or a group

of troublemakers, in spite of good lesson plans, left teaching within five years.

Ways to increase self-efficacy. Teachers and school administrators can take particular

actions to increase self-efficacy in teachers working with students with typical or special needs,

and students with limited English proficiency. One way is to use the lesson study method of

developing, implementing, evaluating, and adjusting lesson plans and teaching (Chong & Hong,

2012). Another way is to provide for positive experiences with students with special needs

(Leyser, Zeigler, & Romi, 2011). Other ways to increase teacher self-efficacy include providing

training, sufficient resources, and professional development (Kraut, Chandler, & Hertenstein,

2016).

In a study regarding the attrition of new science teachers, Hong (2012) found that

supportive administration increased classroom management self-efficacy. One teacher in the

study commented that she could “. . . call on anyone and they’ll help me take care of it, so [she

didn’t] have to worry about anything, discipline, because the teachers and the administration trust

[her] and [she trusts] them” (p. 428). Another teacher stated that she does not need to worry

38

about discipline. She refers offending students to the administration and the Assistant Principal

resolves the issue. When school principals dealt with classroom discipline issues, the study

participants’ classroom management self-efficacy increased.

Chong and Hong (2012) found that the protocol and collaboration of the lesson study

method of developing, implementing, evaluating, and adjusting lesson plans and teaching increase

self-efficacy in teachers in Singapore. The lesson study method is a cyclical approach in which

small groups of same grade or content area teachers work together to improve student learning.

First, the team plans the lesson together. Then, one teacher presents the lesson to a class and the

rest of the team observes and evaluates the quality of instruction. Later, the team discusses the

lesson and observation and makes improvements. Next, another teacher presents the revised

lesson to a different class while the rest of the team observes. “This cycle is repeated and

typically takes 6-9 weeks to complete” (p. 266). This consistent teamwork and improvement of

lessons increase the teachers’ self-efficacy.

Chong and Hong (2012) cited previous studies that stated that there are particular

attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics teachers with high self-efficacy display. Chong and Hong

(2012) submited that the lesson plan method of instruction provides many opportunities to

develop, sustain, and support the attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of teachers with high

self-efficacy. For example, the lesson plan method requires lesson development as a team;

therefore, teachers develop a sense of collective ownership. Observation and constructive

criticism allow teachers to improve their lesson delivery. Increased teacher motivation occurred

due to the safe atmosphere required in the lesson plan method. The lesson plan method supports

increased teacher self-efficacy.

39

Leyser et al. (2011) found in their study of general and special education preservice

teachers in Israel working with students with special learning needs that the number of years of

college preparation did not increase general or personal teaching self-efficacy or self-efficacy for

teaching students with special needs. However, teachers with more years of college did feel more

successful in “. . . fostering positive peer interactions and [providing] a supportive social

environment in the classroom” (p. 250). Confidence in promoting a positive social environment

is important because, many times, students with special learning needs are included in the regular

education environment to improve social skills.

Additionally, Leyser et al. (2011) found that having experience working with students

with special learning needs demonstrated higher general and personal teaching self-efficacy,

efficacy for socialization, and self-efficacy for teaching students with special needs. The

experience garnered by teachers occurred in pre-field student learning experience, tutoring,

mentoring, and summer camps. Finally, the amount of training in special education and inclusion

affects self-efficacy. Student teachers with intensive training had higher personal self-efficacy

and self-efficacy for teaching students with special needs. Teachers with little, no, or some

training felt low self-efficacy for those two areas. However, those with some and those with

intensive training felt similarly highly effective for general self-efficacy and social self-efficacy.

Contrary to the work of some researchers (Droogenbroeck, Spruyt, & Vanroelen, 2014;

Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2006) who found that conflict with

colleagues negatively correlated with self-efficacy, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) found in their

study of Norwegian senior high school teachers that conflict with colleagues was not related to

self-efficacy. One potential explanation is that the other studies included elementary and middle

school participants while Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) only studied senior high school teachers.

40

This difference could mean that because of team-based teaching at the lower levels and not at the

senior high level, colleague conflict does not have as great an influence on self-efficacy (Skaalvik

& Skaalvik, 2016).

Kraut et al. (2016) evaluated the roles of training, access to resources, experience, and

professional development on the self-efficacy of English as a Second Language (ESL) reading

teachers. In this study, self-efficacy was limited to student engagement and instructional

strategies. The mean score of the participants for student engagement efficacy was 3.6 out of 5.

The mean score of the participants for instructional strategies efficacy was 4.11 out of 5. Kraut et

al. (2016) found positive correlations between student engagement efficacy and the amount of

training, access to useful resources, and years of experience. There was not a significant

correlation between student engagement efficacy and the amount of professional development.

Similarly, in regards to instructional strategies efficacy, Kraut et al. (2016) found positive

correlations with the amount of training, access to useful resources, and years of experience, but

not the amount of professional development. Kraut et al. (2016) noted that the teachers involved

in this study received little or no professional development, but during the interview portion of the

study, participants believed that a good way to improve their skills would be to receive high

quality professional development that was “. . . ‘regular’ and ‘ongoing’ and [was] conducted by

‘expert teachers who specialize in ESL reading’” (p. 142).

From the Kraut et al. (2016) study, it can be deduced that training, access to useful

resources, experience, professional development are ways to increase teacher self-efficacy.

School districts have the ability to determine the amount and quality of these things. New

teachers, generally, come to a position with the needed training to be successful. However, when

they do not, school districts can offer reimbursement for college tuition for continuing education.

41

Districts also have the responsibility to provide teachers with useful resources to support teachers’

and students’ educational needs. Additionally, school districts can provide in-service professional

development opportunities for teachers. Finally, by providing targeted professional development,

school districts who work to prevent burnout and attrition will keep experienced teachers in the

classroom where they can provide their valuable service.

From the Malinen et al. (2013) study it is understood that one commonality between the

participants from China, Finland, and South Africa is teacher experience. This clearly shows the

connection between experience and self-efficacy. The implication is that providing teachers with

teaching experiences with students with disabilities will increase their self-efficacy for working

with those students. However, Malinen et al. (2013) cautioned against providing experiences that

would be too difficult or too easy for inexperienced teachers. Special education experiences

without additional training and support that are too demanding could cause frustration and

motivation to quit. Alternatively, special education experiences that are too easy could lead

teachers to “. . . expect quick results and become soon discouraged when they encounter

difficulties” (Malinen et al., 2013, p. 43).

Sense of Community

The idea of sense of community began in 1986 with the work of McMillan and Chavis

(Peterson et al., 2008). Teachers’ perceived sense of community directly relates to their self-

efficacy (Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012). Sense of community is a four-aspect theory

which includes membership, a perception of belonging, influence, a sense of meaning, integration

and fulfillment of needs, support and benefit, and emotional connection, shared history, time, and

experiences (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Within the idea of membership are also the concepts of

42

boundaries, security, belonging and identification, personal investment, and a common symbol

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

From Billingsley and Cross’s (1991) study of special education certified teachers who left

special education classes to go to general education, one component of deterrents to staying in

special education in was lack of support, which “. . . suggest[s] a sense of professional isolation. .

.” (p. 505). Two items in the lack of support component related to lack of support provided by

building and central office administration, and another item related to “Disagreement with special

education policies/practices” (Billingsley & Cross, 1991, p. 504). Notably, three items related to

support from colleagues—“Lack of cooperation regarding mainstreaming, Lack of

understanding/appreciation for work from others, [and] Lack of interaction with other

professionals/isolation” (p. 504). Administrative support components related to things

administrators could control for both students and teachers, such as being knowledgeable and

supportive, providing adequate related services (speech/language, occupational, and physical

therapies, transportation, and psychological services), classroom materials and resources, and

accurate disability diagnoses and placement of students (Billingsley & Cross, 1991). In this

study, lack of support that caused special education teachers to leave special education included

components of every aspect of the school community.

Culture, although different, is something related to sense of community. Four types of

school culture, as described by Fullan and Hargreaves (1992), are individualism, contrived

congeniality, Balkanization, and collaboration. In the individualism school culture,

administrators encourage or allow teachers to complete their tasks alone. In the contrived

congeniality culture, administrators mandate group work, which may, but not necessarily will,

lead to genuine collaboration. In Balkanization, administrators actively isolate and conquer

43

individuals or groups of teachers. Finally, in true collaboration, teachers work together to provide

support for each other. Additionally, types of school cultures range from positive to negative and

aligned to misaligned (Kowalski, 2008). The type of culture lends itself to, or prevents,

community building.

In his qualitative study in a Texas Catholic school, Madrid (2016) discovered connections

between teacher friendships, retention, and enhanced instruction. Friendship between teachers

allowed for confidences, venting, guidance, and encouragement. Principal leadership creates an

environment that fosters inter-collegial friendships. Then, teachers work to provide support for

each other year after year, which adds to the sense of community being built within the school.

Although not using the term sense of community, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011) “. . .

examined the relations between teachers’ perception of six school context variables and their

feeling of belonging, emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, and motivation to leave the teaching

profession” (p. 1036). The six school context variables studied were value consonance,

supervisory support, relations with colleagues, parent relations, time pressure, and discipline

problems. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011) found that value consonance, how teachers feel that their

values agree with the norms of their place of employment, is directly and positively related to

belonging as well as indirectly related to job satisfaction through belonging. Similarly,

supervisory support, relations with colleagues, and parent relations are directly and positively

related to belonging as well as indirectly related to job satisfaction through belonging. Not

surprisingly, belonging is directly and negatively related to emotional exhaustion and motivation

to leave the teaching field. Time pressure and discipline problems were not related to belonging.

Teacher benefits. Teachers benefit from a sense of community. New teachers with

colleague support are more likely to stay in teaching and have lower rates of burnout than those

44

without that support (Jones, Youngs, & Frank, 2013). Inadequate collegial relationships

negatively relate to teacher retention. Additionally, when new teachers, especially new special

education teachers, feel like part of the school community, they are more likely to take advantage

of professional resources found in the school, thus increasing their commitment to both their

assignments and to their schools (Jones et al., 2013).

Another benefit of teacher friendships, and therefore, community, is the development of

professional expertise (Madrid, 2016). Teachers share what they learned over the summer in

various trainings with their colleagues, which stimulates ideas and excitement for the new school

year. Intraschool friendships provide a venue for discussion and learning from each other. These

friendships also allow teachers to share classroom success and talk about ways to make

improvements and overcome difficulties.

School and student benefits. Schools and students benefit from teachers with high sense

of community. Teacher friendships indirectly affect student performance (Madrid, 2016).

Teachers with high sense of community are more likely to stay in their positions, which provides

stability to the school community, and these teachers work harder to help achieve school goals

than teachers with lower sense of community do (Jones et al., 2013). High sense of community

allows teachers to improve their instructional methods and practices (Jones, Youngs, & Frank;

2013; Madrid, 2016). Finally, strong perceived sense of community directly relates to high

teacher self-efficacy, which has many school and student benefits (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012;

Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012). High sense of community in teachers advances schools and

students goals.

According to Madrid (2016), teacher friendships indirectly affect student performance.

Teacher friendships facilitate provision of superior learning environments and strategies. Teacher

45

collaboration provides support for meeting student learning and behavior difficulties or allowance

for enrichment for gifted students. Further, teacher friendships model peace and cooperation in a

working environment.

Coworker interaction such as support, collective responsibility, and fitting in with the

group increases commitment to assignment and commitment to school. Teachers who are

committed to their schools and assignments will work harder toward student achievement and

school goals (Jones et al., 2013). For instance, schools with high turnover have a larger

percentage of new teachers who, as a result of being inexperienced, are less effective than more

seasoned teachers (Sass et al., 2012). Additionally, high teacher turnover results in a lack of

continuity of instruction and stable staff relationships, which are needed for a strong sense of

community. Finally, schools with high turnover must continually recruit and train more teachers

to take the places of those who left (Simon & Johnson, 2013). A stable school workforce leads to

increased student achievement.

Additionally, high sense of community allows teachers to improve their instructional

techniques. The safety of a strong community allows teachers to take advantage of available

resources without fear of judgement (Jones et al., 2013). The goals of professional learning

communities are to improve schools and student learning through collaboration (DuFour, 2004).

Finally, positive mentorship relationships encourage teacher improvement of teaching strategies

and techniques (Martin, Buelo, & Hoffman, 2016). The safety of positive community,

professional learning communities, and mentorships support teachers in improving instruction.

Further, a strong perceived sense of community directly relates to high teacher self-

efficacy, which has many school and student benefits (Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012).

One school and student benefit of high teacher self-efficacy is lower burnout and attrition (Aloe et

46

al., 2014; Høigaard et al., 2012; Hong, 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,

2014). Other school and student benefit of high teacher self-efficacy are better classroom

management, improved instructional strategies, and increased student engagement (Allinder,

1994; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman et al., 1977; Chu, 2011; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Guskey,

1988; Stein & Wang, 1988; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). High teacher sense of community

relates to high teacher self-efficacy, which provides benefits to schools and students.

Teachers with high sense of community benefit schools and students. Student

performance is indirectly affected by teacher friendships (Madrid, 2016). Teachers with high

sense of community are more likely to stay in their positions, which provides stability to the

school community and work harder to help achieve school goals than teachers with lower sense of

community do (Jones et al., 2013). High sense of community allows teachers to improve their

instructional methods and practices (Jones et al., 2013). Finally, strong perceived sense of

community directly relates to high teacher self-efficacy, which has many school and student

benefits (Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012). Teachers with high sense of community

advance school and student goals.

Ways to increase sense of community. Sense of community is something that teachers

and school administrators can take steps to increase in teachers for the benefit of themselves and

students. One way to increase sense of community is to develop and maintain genuine

friendships in the school setting (Madrid, 2016). Teacher induction and mentoring programs are

other ways to increase sense of community (Martin, Buelow, & Hoffman, 2016). The lesson

study method of planning and delivery of lessons (Chong & Hong, 2012) and professional

learning communities (Sass et al., 2012) are other ways to increase sense of community.

47

Increasing sense of community is something teachers and administrators can take an active role in

accomplishing.

One way to develop sense of community in schools is through the pursuit of genuine

friendship. Friendships between colleagues require personal commitment and time investment on

teachers’ part. However, schools need to implement policies and structures that support teachers’

willingness to build friendships (Madrid, 2016). On the other hand, policies that inhibit

friendship building “. . . are basing raises and contract renewal on standardized test performance,

allowing parents to choose their children’s teachers, providing preferred duties to favorite

teachers and undesirable duties to the least favorite teachers, etc.” (p. 125). Principals establish

the mood of safety and concern that enables positive sense of community to develop. Further,

principals are part of the friendship system, not just a supervisor. Principals need to realize the

part they play in the school community and consider cooperating with teachers as friends in order

to maximize the benefits to the school (Madrid, 2016).

Another way to increase sense of community in schools is through teacher mentoring and

induction programs, which provide support for new teachers. Martin et al. (2016) found that two

types of mentors support middle school teachers. The first type of mentor is the one that provides

basic, practical needs such as procuring supplies and helping with paperwork and orientation to

the school building. The second type supports teaching methods and application. Relationships

develop with the second type of mentoring. With these relationships, teaching improves through

honesty and constructive criticism.

Another way to improve sense of community in schools is the use of the lesson study

method of planning and delivering instruction. While Chong and Hong (2012) studied the role of

the lesson study method in increasing self-efficacy, the protocols in the lesson study method

48

require collaboration and teamwork, which would increase sense of community. The lesson study

method is a cyclical approach in which small groups of same grade or content area teachers work

together to improve student learning. A small team of teachers develops a lesson plan. One

teacher presents the lesson to students while the rest of the team observes and notes areas for

improvement. The team makes the lesson improvements then another teacher presents the lesson

and the others observe. This method provides a cooperative and safe atmosphere for lesson

planning, delivery, and improvement.

A different way to encourage school community and reduce attrition is professional

learning communities (Sass et al., 2012). Professional learning communities are groups of

teachers and administrators who discuss classroom wins and challenges in a supportive

environment with the purpose of improving instruction and classroom practices. Stoll, Bolam,

McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas (2006) compiled a list of five key features of professional

learning communities. First is shared values and vision, second is collective responsibility, third

is reflective professional inquiry, fourth is collaboration, and last is promotion of group and

individual learning.

Teachers, students, and schools benefit from a high sense of community in teachers.

Teachers with high sense of community have lower rates of burnout (Jones et al., 2013).

Therefore, they tend to stay in education longer (Jones et al., 2013; Sass et al., 2012). Further,

high sense of community allows teachers to improve their teaching skills (Madrid, 2016; Sass et

al., 2012). Lower burnout rates, lower attrition, and skill improvement benefits the entire school

community. School district administrators can increase sense of community in their teachers by

establishing professional learning communities (Sass et al., 2012), encouraging use of the lesson

49

study method (Chong & Hong, 2012), and becoming part of the friendship equation (Madrid,

2016).

Special Education Teachers

Special education teachers are a unique subgroup within the realm of educators. Special

educators have many of the same responsibilities as general education teachers, such as providing

instruction, creating and monitoring practice activities, creating and grading assessments, and

creating a classroom environment conducive to learning. However, in special education,

circumstances, such as the students’ needs, parent expectations, and environment are more intense

than what is experienced in regular education or are exclusive to the special education. As a

result, experts realized the attrition of special education teachers was cause for concern sooner

than they realized attrition was a problem for general educators and would be felt more deeply

(McKnab, 1995; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1990).

In their seminal study, Billingsley and Cross (1991) surveyed 286 Virginia special

education certified teachers who left special education to go to general education to find out why.

Study participants shared that they found more satisfaction with their instructional duties in

special education than their non-instructional duties. However, Billingsley and Cross (1991)

found that when asked whether the teachers would be interested in returning to special education

if they could choose a position, 36% of study participants said they would not be interested at all.

Additionally, because of lack of administrative support, the excessive paperwork, discipline

problems, and other factors, 25% said there was no incentive they could think of to lure them

back to special education.

Distinctive duties. Special education teachers have many unique duties. In addition to

teaching and grading papers, special education teachers have multiple layers of paperwork, such

50

as reevaluations done every two or three years, Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) to complete

annually, and progress reports due quarterly. Also, special education teachers have additional

meetings they need to schedule, organize, and attend (IDEA, 2004). Further, special education

teachers are expected to write and modify curriculum and assessments so that students with

disabilities have the same access to education as those students without disabilities. This study

will focus on the relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education

teachers since they are a unique group of teachers.

Paperwork. Pennsylvania special education law, commonly called, Chapter 14, requires a

variety of paper work (IDEA, 2004). IEPs are required to be renewed each year for every

identified student, and revisions can happen at any time. Reevaluation reports occur at least every

three years for students in most disability categories and every two years for students with an

intellectual disability. Special education teachers monitor each of the students’ goals for progress

every week. Teachers compile progress reports approximately four times per school year to keep

parents apprised of their children’s progress toward their goals. Manifestation determinations

identify whether student behavior that resulted in suspension was a result of the student’s

disability. Functional behavior assessments (FBA) aid in determining why students engage in

certain behaviors. Often, following an FBA is a behavior plan (IDEA, 2004). This paperwork

takes up 12% of teacher time in school (Jones et al., 2013). Klein (2004) estimated that special

education teachers spend over 10 percent of their time on administrative duties. The onerous

amount of administrative tasks is often a reason for special education teachers leaving the field.

A study of special education certified teachers who left special education classes to go to general

education rated too much paperwork, along with too many students on caseload as the highest

deterrent to teaching satisfaction (Billingsley & Cross, 1991). Too many students on caseload is

51

directly related to too much paperwork because more students mean more IEPs, more progress

reports, and more meetings.

In his study of novice special education teachers, Mehrenberg (2013) found that the

teachers’ feelings regarding paperwork were decidedly negative. The teachers said there was too

much, and it was “overwhelming . . . and ridiculous” (Mehrenberg, 2013, p. 83). Problems

teachers faced when dealing with paperwork were multi-tasking (teaching and writing multiple

IEPs), time management, and ambiguity. Teachers find paperwork to be ambiguous because

there are different interpretations of the state and federal guidelines. The teachers related that

their pre-service instruction in paperwork completion was minimal. However, through colleague

support, the novice teachers learned how to complete the paperwork and with practice became

adept. If schools or individual teachers provide a positive sense of community to novice teachers

by providing assistance and support with paperwork, new teacher self-efficacy should increase,

thus lowering the chance new teachers will leave the field.

Meeting preparation and direction. Special education teachers need to schedule, prepare

for, and run many meetings during the school year. While at least one regular education teacher

is required to attend IEP (the annual renewal and revising of the Individualized Education Plan)

and manifestation determination (the meeting to determine whether a student’s behavior that led

to suspension for 15 days was a manifestation of the student’s disability or not) meetings, the

special education case manager is required to attend all meetings (IDEA, 2004). Teachers found

balancing meetings, paperwork, and instruction to be difficult (Jones et al., 2013; Mehrenberg,

2013). In addition to special education meetings, teachers are required to attend faculty meetings

and multiple department meetings. One of this researcher’s special education supervisors

52

conservatively estimated that preparation and wrap up of each meeting takes two and a half hours,

which is not taking into account the meeting time itself.

Modifying curriculum. Special education teachers are regularly asked to adapt

curriculum for individual student learning needs. Curriculum modifications are part of inclusive

education (Janney & Snell, 2013). These modifications include changing tests from essay or

short answer questions to matching or multiple choice for students with writing disabilities or

adjusting test length for students with attention and focus difficulties. Some students need fewer

options on multiple choice and matching assessments because they are easily confused or

distracted by too many choices. Additionally, instructional modifications could include adding

more manipulatives or representations to math lessons, including more visuals, or altering

discovery-based learning to explicit teaching. Student success with the modifications would

positively contribute to teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986; Conley, 2015).

Distinctive stressors. Jones et al. (2013) found that being a special education teacher is a

significant predictor of teacher attrition. They asserted that new general education teachers’ roles

are defined and school districts provide support and mentoring to assist them in their transition

from student to teacher. However, special education teachers’ duties are less clearly defined than

those of general education teachers. That ambiguity appears in the task of developing, modifying,

differentiating, and delivering curriculum in multiple subjects at multiple levels. Further, special

education teachers may be confused about how to balance responsibilities, prioritize, and find

their place in the education system. These feelings affect teacher self-efficacy and their

commitment to the school and students (Jones et al., 2013).

Parent interaction. Parents of special education students have needs that are as varied as

the students’ needs. Some parents try to effectively parent their children and navigate the special

53

education system while they themselves cope with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or

autism spectrum disorders. Some parents may provide difficulties for special education teachers

for a variety of reasons. One teacher experienced hostile parents due to misplaced parent guilt,

ongoing grieving, and denial of their children’s true disabilities and needs for success.

Additionally, interference from outside agencies may polarize parent-teacher relationships.

Although both parties generally strive for student success, differing perspectives or goals can

create or exacerbate disagreement. Although it was not high on the list of deterrents to teaching

in special education, problems with parents is an obstacle to teacher satisfaction (Billingsley &

Cross, 1991).

High-need students. Student related reasons for special education attrition include

discipline problems and lack of progress. Lack of progress occurs when, due to the severity of

students’ disabilities, children do not make sufficient progress toward their goals even though the

teachers work diligently to teach to the best of their abilities. Teacher and student success may be

limited in spite of high teacher effort because of the paperwork load, high student-teacher ratios,

and lack of support. One component of deterrents to staying in special education in Billingsley

and Cross’s (1991) study of special education certified teachers who left special education classes

to go to general education was student concerns. These concerns are greater than similar

concerns in regular education since special education teachers may work with a wide variety of

student needs at one time and may spend more time with particular students than regular

education teachers do. Items in this component of deterrents to returning to special education

included demands of working with special education population, lack of student progress related

to teacher effort, difficult and disruptive students, too much time with the same students, too

much diversity of student need, and problems with parents.

54

The high attrition rate of teachers of students with emotional and behavior disorders is

well documented. However, administrative support in the areas of guidance and feedback,

opportunities for growth, and appreciation, and trust, which were important to surveyed teachers,

were higher for teachers who intended to stay in education for the long-term (Cancio, Albrecht, &

Johns, 2013). Further, these types of administrative support increased job satisfaction and

positive views about the school. When administrators provide teachers of students with

emotional and behavior disorders with emotional support, such as guidance, appreciation, trust,

and informational support, such as guidance and opportunities for growth and guidance and

feedback, are more satisfied with their work and intend to stay in teaching longer (Cancio et al.,

2013).

Many special education teachers work with students who have intense needs. The severity

of need in certain special education populations causes stress on the teachers. Disciplinary

problems, lack of student progress, and increased paperwork add to workload and emotional

stress. These stresses can manifest themselves as burnout and culminate in special education

teachers leaving the field.

Distinctive needs. Special education teachers have many of the same needs, such as

administrative and collegial support, training and development, and appreciation, as their regular

education counterparts, but they also have distinctive needs. Bettini et al. (2016) studied how the

administrators in one particular school district created a culture of effective special education

teachers. First, the administrators identified, defined, and taught the district’s values of the worth

of all people, the appreciation of service, and the esteem of relationships. After hiring talented

and passionate teachers, the administrators continue to “. . . unify staff around a common mission,

so that everyone’s efforts are directed toward shared goals . . .” (p. 10). Additionally,

55

administrators provide a variety of supports including emotional support, communication,

modeling, professional development, and help with problem solving and streamlining work.

Jones et al. (2013) contended that special education teachers, especially new teachers,

depend on support provided by mentors and colleagues and often benefit more than general

education teachers do. Further, new special education teachers are more likely to stay in special

education when supported by their coworkers. Additionally, new special educators struggle to

create and modify curriculum, clarify their assignments, and positively interact with general

educators. Collegial support is necessary for new teachers to understand expectations; prioritize

personal beliefs, professional expectations, and professional norms; and manage relationships and

acquire support of colleagues (Jones et al., 2013).

Support of coworkers predicted special education teachers’ commitment to their

assignments. Conversely, the link between colleague support and assignment commitment for

regular education teachers is minimal (Jones et al., 2013). Additionally, Jones et al. (2013) found

that collective responsibility strongly predicted commitment to school for special education

teachers but not for general education teachers.

In spite of all the difficulties in special education, teachers stay in schools with

distinguished mentorship (Moores-Abdool & Voigt, 2007). First, an experienced colleague who

exhibits professionalism and builds a relationship provides support for a new teacher that will

increase longevity. Next, mentors and novices need to have ample time to meet, observe, and

debrief. Mentors and new teachers should also be located in close proximity to each other.

Mentorship programs must provide structure and flexibility. Finally, the main reason good

mentors are needed is so novice teachers can learn from the experience of others to gain

56

confidence in all of the many tasks required of special education teachers (Moores-Abdool &

Voigt, 2007).

Summary

High teacher attrition makes school environments non-cohesive which leads to

inefficiency in producing student development and achievement (Schaefer, Long, & Clandinin,

2012). Special education teachers are especially susceptible to stressors that lead to burnout. For

some teachers, dealing with high need students, difficult parents, paperwork, and meetings pushes

them to their limits and beyond.

High sense of community has been linked to lower rates of burnout, and inadequate

collegial support is related to higher rates of attrition (Jones et al., 2013). Students benefit

indirectly by receiving improved instruction. School-sponsored community building includes

professional learning communities, induction programs, and mentorship and new teacher

induction programs.

Self-efficacy in teachers has many benefits for students, schools, and teachers. Student

and benefits include increased motivation (Midgley et al., 1989) and their own increased self-

efficacy (Anderson et al., 1988). Teacher benefits include increased instructional quality

(Holzberger et al., 2013; Klassen & Tze, 2014), fewer classroom disruptions (Dicke et al., 2014),

less burnout, lower rates of attrition (Aloe et al., 2014; Høigaard et al., 2012), and increased job

satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014).

Although the duties and needs of special education teachers are well documented, there is

a gap in the literature linking special education teachers and their sense of community in the

school setting. Additionally, in spite of links between friendship, school culture, and self-

efficacy, there is another gap in the literature providing a clear relationship between sense of

57

community and self-efficacy. Finally, the current study will investigate the possibility of a

relationship between sense of community and special education teacher self-efficacy.

58

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Design

The research design for this study was a quantitative correlational design using one group

and two instruments for comparison. Correlational design was appropriate for this study because

“correlational research refers to studies in which the purpose is to discover relationships between

variables through the use of correlational statistics” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 332). The

criterion variable was self-efficacy in special education teachers. The predictor variable was

perceived sense of community.

Research Questions

RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

sense of community within the school and their sense of self-efficacy?

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in high school special education teachers?

RQ3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in elementary special education teachers?

Null Hypotheses

The null hypotheses for this study were:

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of Community in School Scale

(SCSS) and their sense of self-efficacy as measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short

(TSES).

H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between high school special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

59

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES).

H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between elementary special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES).

Participants and Setting

The participants for the study were drawn from a convenience sample of elementary,

middle, and high school special education teachers from school districts in a Mid-Atlantic state

during the fall of the 2017-2018 school year. The school districts were non-city districts. The

sample consisted of 21 male and 173 female teachers, approximately 90% female and 10% male.

Questionnaires from 88 elementary teacher participants and 72 secondary teacher

participants were collected, which is in excess of the minimum of 66 as outlined by Gall et al.

(2007). Additionally, 34 middle school teachers participated for inclusion in the all teachers

category. According to Gall et al. (2007), for medium effect size with a statistical power of .7 and

an alpha of .05, a minimum of 66 participants were needed.

Instrumentation

The Sense of Community in School Scale (SCSS) is a survey used to determine teachers’

level of perceived sense of community in school. It was developed and validated by Admiraal

and Lockhorst (2012). Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores are below.

Overall (α = 0.80)

Group Identity (α = 0.90)

Shared Interactional Repertoire (α = 0.70)

60

Shared Domain (α = 0.76)

Emotional Safety (α = 0.84)

Tolerance for individual differences (α = 0.81)

Meaningful Relationships (α = 0.79)

The SCSS is a 33-question, five-point Likert type scale that ranged from Does Apply Very

Much to Does Not Apply At All. Responses were as follows: Does Apply Very Much = 5 and

Does Not Apply At All = 1. The SCSS was appropriate for use in this study because it measures

sense of community in the school setting. While the scale has been validated for pre-service and

in-service teachers (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2011), this study was limited to in-service teacher

sense of community. Items 4, 6, 10, 16, 21, and 33 relate to group identity. Items 7, 15, 17, 22,

30, 32 relate to shared domain. Items 5, 13, 25, and 27 relate to interactional repertoire. Items 2,

8, 18, 19, 26, and 31 relate to emotional safety. Items 1, 3, 9, 12, 20, and 29 relate to tolerance

for individual differences. Items 11, 14, 23, 24, and 28 relate to meaningful relationship.

The SCSS was used in one other study (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2015). It is

appropriate for use in this study because it measures teachers’ sense of community. Permission to

use the SCSS was granted and the permission letter can be found in Appendix A.

The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES, short) also known as the Ohio State

Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) was developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001).

Cronbach’s alpha scores are below.

Over all (α = 0.90)

Efficacy for instructional strategies (α = 0.86)

Efficacy for classroom management (α = 0.86)

Efficacy for student engagement (α = 0.81)

61

The TSES, short is a 12-question nine-point Likert type scale that ranged from A Great

Deal to None At All. Responses were as follows: A Great Deal = 9, Quite A Bit = 7, Some

Degree = 6, Very Little = 3, and None At All = 1. Additionally, demographic questions of sex,

racial identity, subjects, grades, and levels taught, years of teaching experience, school context

(urban, suburban, and rural), and percentage of free and reduced lunch students are included. The

possible scores on the TSES, short range from 12 to 108 points. A score of 12 points is the lowest

possible score, meaning that the responder has very low self-efficacy. A score of 108 points is the

highest, meaning that the responder has extremely high self-efficacy. Items 2, 4, 7, and 11 relate

to efficacy in student engagement. Items 5, 9, 10, and 12 pertain to efficacy in instructional

strategies. Items 1, 3, 6, and 8 apply to efficacy in classroom management.

The instrument was used in numerous studies (Fives & Buehl, 2009; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,

2007; Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2007). It is appropriate for use in this study because it measures

teacher beliefs about self-efficacy. Permission to use the TSES was granted, and a letter can be

found in Appendix A.

Procedures

First, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was secured. While in the process of and

following IRB approval, letters were sent to superintendents of targeted school districts to request

permission to survey their special education teachers. Permission from four school districts was

granted, and an email with the survey link was sent for disbursement to special education

teachers. Additionally, recruitment emails were sent directly to special education teachers in non-

city school districts in the target state

Surveys were collected by Survey Monkey. When enough surveys were completed, the

survey link was closed, and data analysis began. All surveys were anonymous.

62

Data Analysis

A bivariate correlation coefficient was used for this study because it “. . . is a statistic that

enables us to describe in mathematical terms the strength of the relationships between two

variables” (Gall et al., 2007, p. 137). Continuous data from both scales was used. The Pearson

product moment coefficient was applied for this study because it is used with interval or ratio data

(Gall et al., 2007).

The following are the assumptions for the Pearson product moment coefficient

(Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013, p. 24)

(a) Normality: This assumption assumes that the population distributions are normal.

Check for normality by creating histograms or by conducting normality tests, such as the

Shapiro-Wilk and 21 Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. On the histogram, normality is assumed

when there is a symmetrical, bell shaped curve. For the normality tests, non-significant

results (a significance level more than .05) indicate tenability of the assumption. That is,

normality can be assumed.

(b) Independent Observations: This assumption requires that the observations within each

variable must be independent.

(c) Linearity: This assumption assumes the relationship between the two variables is

linear. Check for linearity using a scatterplot; a roughly straight line (no curve) indicates

that the assumption is tenable.

(d) Homoscedasticity: This assumption assumes the variability in scores in both variables

should be similar. Check for homoscedasticity using a scatterplot; a cigar shape indicates

that the assumption is tenable.

63

The effect size was reported. An alpha of .017 was used due to Bonferroni Correction in

order to avoid making a Type 1 error (Warner, 2013).

This quantitative correlational study investigated the relationship between sense of

community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. Eighty-eight elementary, 72

secondary, and 34 middle school special education teachers participated in the study by answering

two surveys presented online. The Sense of Community in School Scale and the Teacher Sense

of Efficacy Scale, Short were used in conjunction to find the study results.

64

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Overview

This chapter will share the results of this study investigating the relationship between

sense of community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. One hundred ninety-four

special education teachers answered questions from two surveys. Descriptive statistics for the

SCSS and TSES for all special education teacher participants, high school participants, and

elementary participants are provided. Additionally, descriptive statistics for the subscales for

each test for each group are given. Finally, the correlation data for each group is supplied.

Research Questions

RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

sense of community within the school and their sense of self-efficacy?

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in high school special education teachers?

RQ3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between perceived sense of

community and self-efficacy in elementary special education teachers?

Null Hypotheses

The null hypotheses for this study were:

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’

perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of Community in

School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the Teacher Sense

of Efficacy Scale, short.

H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between high school special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

65

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, short.

H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between elementary special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, short.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of all teachers in the SCSS. The

SCSS total scores range was 33-165. The mean of the total score was 120, which was 3.6 on the

scale, indicating that overall, the teachers’ sense of community was just below does apply. The

mean of the Tolerance for Individual Differences (TID) subscale (6-30) was 21, which was 3.5 on

the scale, indicating between neutral and does apply. The mean of the Emotional Safety (ES)

subscale (6-30) was 22.8, which was 3.8 on the scale, indicating just below does apply. The mean

of the Group Identity (GI) subscale (6-30) was 23.3, which was 3.9 on the scale, indicating just

below does apply. The mean of the Shared Interactional Repertoire (IR) subscale (4-20) was

11.5, which was 2.9 on the scale, indicating just below neutral. The mean of the Shared Domain

(SD) subscale (6-30) was 23.4, which was 3.9 on the scale, indicating just below does apply. The

mean of the Meaningful Relationships (MR) subscale (5-25) was 20.3, which was 4 on the scale,

indicating does apply.

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of all teachers in the TSES. The

TSES, Short total scores range was 12-108. The mean of the total score was 86, which was 7 on

the scale indicating that over all, the teachers’ sense of efficacy was quite a bit. The mean of the

Efficacy in the Student Engagement subscale (4-36) was 27, which was 6.75 on the scale,

66

indicating just under quite a bit. The mean of the Efficacy in Instructional Strategies subscale (4-

36) was 29, which was 7.25 on the scale, indicating just over quite a bit. The mean of the

Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale (4-36) was 29, which was 7.25 on the scale,

indicating just over quite a bit.

67

Table 1

Descriptives for All Teachers Sense of Community in School Scale

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

1.66 120.06 116.79 123.33 120.79 124.00 533.65 23.10 60.00 160.00 100.00 32.00 -.49 .18 -.56 .35

TID .31 21.09 20.48 21.70 21.14 22.00 18.56 4.31 8.00 30.00 22.00 6.00 -.26 .175 -.25 .35

ES .33 22.84 22.18 23.49 23.00 24.00 21.69 4.66 11.00 30.00 19.00 6.25 -.50 .18 -.55 .35

GI .35 23.29 25.59 23.99 23.51 24.00 24.35 4.93 10.00 30.00 20.00 7.00 -.53 .18 -.59 .35

IR .26 11.46 10.96 11.97 11.43 12.00 12.71 3.56 4.00 20.00 16.00 5.00 .00 .18 -.66 .35

SD .35 23.36 22.66 24.06 23.61 24.00 24.48 4.95 10.00 30.00 20.00 7.00 -.68 .18 -.39 .35

MR .27 20.28 19.75 20.81 20.47 21.00 13.96 3.74 10.00 25.00 15.00 6.00 -.57 .18 -.54 .35

Notes. TID=Tolerance for Individual Differences, ES=Emotional Safety, GI=Group Identity, IR=Shared Interactional Repertoire, SD=Shared Domain, MR=

Meaningful Relationships, SE = Standard Error

Table 2

Descriptives for All Teachers Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

.69 86.00 84.65 87.35 86.10 86.00 91.17 9.55 51.00 107.00 56.00 12.00 -.17 .18 .26 .35

IS .31 21.09 20.48 21.70 21.14 22.00 18.56 4.31 8.00 30.00 22.00 6.00 -.26 .175 -.25 .35

CM .27 29.47 28.94 30.01 29.57 29.00 14.22 3.77 12.00 36.00 24.00 5.00 -.42 .18 1.53 .35

SE .30 27.18 26.59 27.77 27.25 27.00 17.60 4.20 12.00 36.00 24.00 6.00 -.25 .18 .27 .35

Notes. IS = Instructional Strategies, CM = Classroom Management, SE = Student Engagement

68

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of elementary teachers in the

SCSS. The SCSS total scores range was 33-165. The mean of the total score was 124, which was

3.8 on the scale indicating that over all, the teachers’ sense of community is just under does apply.

The mean of the Tolerance for Individual Differences (TID) subscale (6-30) was 22, which was

3.7 on the scale, indicating just under does apply. The mean of the Emotional Safety (ES)

subscale (6-30) was 19, which was 3.2 on the scale, indicating just above neutral. The mean of

the Group Identity (GI) subscale (6-30) was 23.5, which would be 3.9 on the scale, indicating just

below does apply. The mean of the Shared Interactional Repertoire (IR) subscale (4-20) was

11.6, which was 2.9 on the scale, indicating just below neutral. The mean of the Shared Domain

(SD) subscale (6-30) was 23.7, which was 3.95 on the scale, indicating just below does apply.

The mean of the Meaningful Relationships (MR) subscale (5-25) was 20.6, which would be 4 on

the scale, indicating does apply.

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of elementary teachers in the

TSES. The TSES, Short total scores range was 12-108. The mean of the total score was 87,

which was 7 on the scale indicating that, over all, the teachers’ sense of efficacy was quite a bit.

The mean of the Efficacy in the Student Engagement subscale (4-36) was 27.8, which was 6.95

on the scale, indicating just under quite a bit. The mean of the Efficacy in Instructional Strategies

subscale (4-36) was 29, which was 7.25 on the scale, indicating just over quite a bit. The mean of

the Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale (4-36) was 29.9 on the scale, which was 7.5,

indicating just over quite a bit.

69

Table 3

Descriptives for Elementary Sense of Community in School Scale

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

2.50 124.13 119.16 129.09 124.88 127.00 549.21 23.44 61.00 164.00 103.00 37.50 -.38 .26 -.56 .35

TID .44 21.84 20.97 22.72 21.92 22.00 17.08 4.13 11.00 30.00 19.00 6.00 -.27 .26 -.47 .51

ES .41 19.31 18.49 20.13 19.46 19.00 14.93 3.86 10.00 25.00 15.00 5.75 -.34 .26 -.53 .51

GI .50 23.45 22.45 24.46 23.65 24.00 22.39 4.73 13.00 30.00 17.00 7.75 -.48 .26 -.62 .51

IR .38 11.59 10.83 12.35 11.52 12.00 12.96 3.60 5.00 20.00 15.00 5.00 .20 .26 -.59 .51

SD .51 23.74 22.73 24.75 24.02 25.00 22.56 4.75 10.00 30.00 20.00 7.00 -.72 .26 -.15 .51

MR .41 20.56 19.75 21.37 20.82 21.00 14.62 3.82 10.00 25.00 15.00 6.00 -.70 .26 -.23 .51

Notes. TID=Tolerance for Individual Differences, ES=Emotional Safety, GI=Group Identity, IR=Shared Interactional Repertoire, SD=Shared Domain, MR=

Meaningful Relationships, SE = Standard Error

Table 4

Descriptives for Elementary Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

1.04 87.11 85.04 89.18 87.15 87.00 95.48 9.77 65.00 107.00 42.00 14.75 -.03 .26 -.51 .51

IS .39 29.42 28.64 30.20 29.46 29.00 13.44 3.67 21.00 36.00 15.00 5.00 -.04 .26 -.59 .51

CM .40 29.86 29.06 30.67 29.98 30.00 14.34 3.79 20.00 36.00 16.00 4.00 -.20 .26 -.27 .51

SE .45 27.83 26.93 28.73 27.92 28.50 18.21 4.27 18.00 36.00 18.00 6.00 -.31 .26 -.36 .51

Notes. IS = Instructional Strategies, CM = Classroom Management, SE = Student Engagement

70

Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of high school teachers in the

SCSS. The SCSS total scores range was 33-165. The mean of the total score was 118.9, which

was 3.6 on the scale indicating that overall, the teachers’ sense of community was just below does

apply. The mean of the Tolerance for Individual Differences (TID) subscale (6-30) was 17,

which was 2.8 on the scale, indicating just below neutral. The mean of the Emotional Safety (ES)

subscale (6-30) was 22, which was 3.7 on the scale, indicating just below does apply. The mean

of the Group Identity (GI) subscale (6-30) was 22.8, which was 3.8 on the scale, indicating just

below does apply. The mean of the Shared Interactional Repertoire (IR) subscale (4-20) was 11,

which was 2.75 on the scale, indicating just below neutral. The mean of the Shared Domain (SD)

subscale (6-30) was 22.7, which was 3.8 on the scale indicating just below does apply. The mean

of the Meaningful Relationships (MR) subscale (5-25) was 19.9, which was 4 on the scale,

indicating does apply.

Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics for the responses of high school teachers in the

TSES. TSES, Short total scores range was 12-108. The mean of the total score was 85.8, which

would be 7 on the scale indicating that over all, the teachers’ sense of efficacy was quite a bit.

The mean of the Efficacy in the Student Engagement subscale (4-36) was 26.8, which was 6.7 on

the scale, indicating just under quite a bit. The mean of the Efficacy in Instructional Strategies

subscale (4-36) was 29.5, which was 7.4 on the scale, indicating just over quite a bit. The mean

of the Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale (4-36) was 29.5, which was 7.4 on the scale,

indicating just over quite a bit.

71

Table 5

Descriptives for High School Sense of Community in School Scale

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

2.96 118.86 112.97 124.76 119.30 124.50 629.30 25.09 67.00 164.00 97.00 35.50 -.38 .28 -.84 .56

TID .46 17.06 16.14 17.97 17.10 17.50 15.04 3.88 7.00 25.00 18.00 6.00 -.29 .28 -.29 .56

ES .55 21.97 20.87 23.07 22.10 23.00 21.83 4.67 11.00 30.00 19.00 7.75 -.41 .28 -.84 .56

GI .60 22.82 21.63 24.01 23.02 24.00 25.76 5.08 10.00 30.00 20.00 8.00 -.45 .28 -.60 .56

IR .45 11.11 10.22 12.01 11.09 11.50 14.50 3.81 4.00 19.00 15.00 6.00 -.08 .28 -.82 .56

SD .64 22.68 21.40 23.97 22.89 24.00 29.88 5.47 11.00 30.00 19.00 9.00 -.49 .28 -.84 .56

MR .44 19.86 18.98 20.74 19.96 20.00 13.95 3.74 13.00 25.00 12.00 5.75 -.39 .28 -.95 .56

Notes. TID=Tolerance for Individual Differences, ES=Emotional Safety, GI=Group Identity, IR=Shared Interactional Repertoire, SD=Shared Domain, MR=

Meaningful Relationships, SE = Standard Error

Table 6

Descriptives for High School Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short

M

SE

M 95 % CI

Lower Upper

5%

Trimmed

M

Med. Var. SD Min Max Range IQ

Range

Skewness Skewness

SE

Kurtosis Kurtosis

SE

Total

Score

1.01 85.78 83.76 87.80 85.79 85.50 73.84 8.59 66.00 106.00 40.00 12.00 .11 .28 -.10 .56

IS .39 29.42 28.64 30.20 29.46 29.00 13.44 3.67 21.00 36.00 15.00 5.00 -.04 .26 -.59 .51

CM .40 29.86 29.06 30.67 29.98 30.00 14.34 3.79 20.00 36.00 16.00 4.00 -.20 .26 -.27 .51

SE .44 26.81 25.93 27.68 26.71 27.00 13.85 3.72 20.00 36.00 16.00 5.00 .42 .28 -.11 .56

Notes. IS = Instructional Strategies, CM = Classroom Management, SE = Student Engagement

72

Results

Null Hypothesis One

Correlation coefficients were conducted to evaluate the relationship between special

education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the Sense of

Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES). Using the Bonferroni approach to control for

Type I error across the correlations, a p value of less than .005 was required for significance. The

result of the correlational analysis presented in Table 7 show that there was a low positive

correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. Null

hypothesis one was accepted since the significance of .024 was more than .005.

Table 7

Correlations for Special Education Teachers

Measure 1 2

1. SCSS Total Score (N

= 72)

Pearson’s r -- .162*

p-value .024

2. TSES Total Score (N

= 72) Pearson’s r .162* --

p-value .024

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The assumptions tests for the Pearson product moment coefficient follow. Figure 1 and

Figure 2 show that the distributions for all teachers on the SPSS were normal. Therefore,

73

normality can be assumed.

Figure 1. Histogram of SCSS Total Score for All Teachers.

Figure 2. Histogram of TSES Total Score for All Teachers.

Figure 3 indicates the lack of linearity and the lack of homoscedasticity. The lack of a

roughly straight line (no curve) indicates that the assumption is not tenable. The lack of cigar

shape on this scatterplot indicates that the assumption of homeoscedasticity was not tenable.

74

Figure 3. Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for All Teachers.

Null Hypothesis Two

Correlation coefficients were conducted to evaluate the relationship between high school

special education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the

Sense of Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as

measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES). Using the Bonferroni approach

to control for Type I error across the correlations, a p value of less than .005 was required for

significance. The result of the correlational analysis presented in Table 8 show that there was a

low positive correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education

teachers. Null hypothesis two was accepted since the significance of .190 was more than .005.

75

Table 8

Correlations for High School Special Education Teachers

Measure 1 2

1. SCSS Total Score (N

= 72)

Pearson’s r -- .156

p-value .190

2. TSES Total Score (N

= 72)

Pearson’s r .156 --

p-value .190

The assumptions tests for the Pearson product moment coefficient follow. Figures 4 and 5

show that the distributions for all teachers on the SPSS are normal. Therefore, normality can be

assumed.

Figure 4. Histogram of SCSS Total Score for High School Teachers.

76

Figure 5. Histogram of TSES Total Score for High School Teachers.

Figure 6 indicates the lack of linearity and the lack of homoscedasticity. The lack of a

roughly straight line (no curve) indicates that the assumption is not tenable. The lack of cigar

shape on this scatterplot indicates that the assumption of homeoscedasticity was not tenable.

Figure 6. Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for High School Teachers.

77

Null Hypothesis Three

Correlation coefficients were conducted to evaluate the relationship between elementary

special education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as measured by the

Sense of Community in School Scale (SCSS) and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as

measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES). Using the Bonferroni approach

to control for Type I error across the correlations, a p value of less than .005 was required for

significance. The result of the correlational analysis presented in Table 9 show that there is a

medium positive correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy in special education

teachers. Null hypothesis three was rejected since the significance was less than 0.01.

Table 9

Correlations for Elementary Special Education Teachers

Measure 1 2

1. SCSS Total Score (N

= 88)

Pearson’s r -- .303**

p-value .004

2. TSES Total Score (N

= 88)

Pearson’s r .303** --

p-value .004

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figures 7 and 8 show that the distributions for all teachers on the SCSS were normal.

Therefore, normality can be assumed.

78

Figure 7. Histogram of SCSS Total Score for Elementary Teachers.

Figure 8. Histogram of TSES Total Score for Elementary Teachers.

Figure 9 indicates the lack of linearity and the lack of homoscedasticity. The lack of a

roughly straight line (no curve) indicates that the assumption is not tenable. The lack of cigar

shape on this scatterplot indicates that the assumption of homoscedasticity was not tenable.

79

Figure 9. Scatterplot of SCSS and TSES Total Scores for Elementary Teachers.

80

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

This chapter will explore the results of the study researching the relationship between

sense of community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. The discussion reviews each

hypothesis and the results of the study. The conclusions and implications sections take the results

and explore their meaning and practical applications of them. The recommendations section

offers additional ways to study sense of community and self-efficacy in more specific populations

and settings of special education teachers.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between sense of

community and self-efficacy in special education teachers. Previous research shows a

relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy (Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al.,

2012). Research also shows that higher self-efficacy in teachers relates to lower rates of burnout

and attrition (Aloe et al., 2014; Høigaard et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). A sampling of

special education teachers in one Mid-Atlantic state completed the Sense of Community in School

Scale (SCSS) and the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Short (TSES). The results showed a small

to medium positive correlation.

Null Hypothesis One stated that there is no statistically significant relationship between

special education teachers’ sense of community within the school as measured by the SCSS and

their sense of self-efficacy as measured by the TSES. The results of the study showed sense of

community scores just below neutral to does apply. Self-efficacy results showed higher scores

from just under to just over quite a bit. A minimal positive correlation between sense of

community and self-efficacy was shown for all levels of special education teachers. However,

since the significance of .024 was more than .005, the null hypothesis was accepted.

81

Null Hypothesis Two stated that there is no statistically significant relationship between

high school special education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as

measured by the SCSS and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the TSES. The

results of the study showed sense of community scores just below neutral to does apply. Self-

efficacy results showed higher results between some degree to over quite a bit. A small positive

correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy for high school special education

teachers was found. Null hypothesis two was accepted since the significance of .190 was more

than .005. This finding supports the results of the study by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) who

found in their study of Norwegian senior high school teachers that conflict with colleagues was

not related to self-efficacy. One potential explanation is that other studies include elementary and

middle school participants while Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) only studied senior high school

teachers. This difference could mean that because of team-based teaching at the lower levels and

not at the senior high level, colleague conflict does not have as great an influence on self-efficacy

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016).

Null Hypothesis Three stated that there is no statistically significant relationship between

elementary special education teachers’ perceived sense of community within the school as

measured by the SCSS and their perceived sense of self-efficacy as measured by the TSES. The

results of the study showed sense of community scores just below does apply to right on does

apply. Self-efficacy scores showed higher results of just under to just over quite a bit. A medium

positive correlation was found between sense of community and self-efficacy for elementary

teachers. Therefore, null hypothesis three was rejected since the significance of .004 was less

than 0.005.

82

Conclusions

There was a small positive relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy in

special education teachers at all levels and at the high school level. However, there was not a

significant correlation, so Null Hypothesis One and Null Hypothesis Two were accepted. There

was a medium positive correlation between sense of community and self-efficacy for elementary

teachers, so Null Hypothesis Three was rejected. High school special education teachers have

lower overall sense of community and self-efficacy than elementary teachers and all participating

special education teachers. Further, high school teachers had lower subscale scores for the SCSS

except for emotional safety. High school teachers also had lower sub scale scores for the TSES

except for instructional strategies.

Implications

The results of this study have implications for several groups of educational stakeholders.

Teachers are the focus of the study and the most affected by sense of community and self-efficacy

or the lack thereof. Second to the teachers, administrators have the ability to influence sense of

community for their teachers. Finally, students are the benefactors of strong teacher self-efficacy.

Three groups of educational stakeholders can learn from the results of this present study.

First, teachers are the focus of this study. One implication of the results of this study is

that not all special education teachers are the same. Although this study does not delve into the

differences in working environment, personality, or other differences between elementary and

high school special educators, this study did find differences in sense of community and self-

efficacy. Elementary and all participants had higher sense of community and self-efficacy overall

than did high school participants. One could speculate that the team approaches in elementary

83

and middle school set up to support students provides support for special education teachers as

well.

Although elementary and all participants had higher scores overall, high school

participants had higher scores in emotional safety for sense of community and instructional

strategies for self-efficacy. This researcher cannot speculate the reason for the higher emotional

safety score, but the higher instructional strategies score could be related to teaching the same

subject matter multiple times per day and working with regular education teachers who specialize

in a particular subject. Teacher groups can work together to raise the sense of emotional safety

and instructional strategies for elementary and middle school special education teachers as well as

for their high school counterparts.

Scores for shared domain and meaningful relationships were the highest for all participant

categories. Teachers should recognize the strengths they have as generally kind individuals who

care for each other and their group in order to provide successful learning experiences for the

students. Then, teachers should continue caring for each other in whichever way they do that

best, whether that is through monthly potluck luncheons, going to a coffee shop after school, or

going out for lunch on professional development days.

Next, administrators have the ability to influence sense of community for their teachers.

There is a small relationship between sense of community and self-efficacy for high school

participants and a medium correlation for elementary teacher participants. One suggestion is that

special and regular education administrators be purposeful about increasing sense of community

for special education teachers, especially elementary special education teachers.

On a different note, the sense of community subset of interactional repertoire was the

lowest score for all groups. The items in the interactional repertoire category follow.

84

This group takes time to discuss how we communicate.

This group takes time to reflect and discuss how we work together as a whole.

During meetings, people call for a “time out” when necessary to deal with

potential problems so certain individuals do not go on feeling hurt or unheard.

This group employs clear norms, rules, and laws (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2012).

Administrators should consider taking time to evaluate the group’s working relationship and

facilitate discussion on ways to improve this aspect of community.

Further, students benefit from having teachers with strong sense of community and self-

efficacy. Teachers with good self-efficacy in classroom management enable students to learn in a

safe and productive environment. Students with teachers who have teachers with strong self-

efficacy in instructional strategies will learn more efficiently. Students who are effectively

engaged by their teachers will learn more since they will be part of the learning experience. A

strong sense of community and self-efficacy in teachers benefits students.

Finally, although Collie et al. (2012) and Moolenaar et al. (2012) found that strong

perceived sense of community directly relates to high teacher self-efficacy, this study did not find

similar results for elementary special education teachers or the group of all participants.

However, like Collie et al. (2012) and Moolenaar et al. (2012), this study did show a correlation

between sense of community and self-efficacy in elementary special education teachers. Also, the

high scores for shared domain and meaningful relationships seem to provide support for Madrid’s

(2016) finding that genuine friendships among teachers increase self-efficacy.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. The first limitation is the sample. The study

participants were from only one state in the Mid-Atlantic region. A related limitation is that

85

surveys were completed by teachers who chose to complete them. It is possible that only teachers

with enough margin in their lives to add another item to their “to-do” lists participated in the

study. Another limitation is the lack of racial and developed environment (rural, suburban, and

urban) diversity in the participants. Additionally, some teachers teach cross-level, which could

confuse their sense of community and self-efficacy.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should include different school type such as city school districts, private

schools, or charter schools. Next, researchers could look at the time of year teachers answer

surveys. Additionally, future research could investigate the differences in teachers of students in

certain age levels; years of experience; or disability categories, such as autism, emotional

disturbance, intellectual disability, or multiple disabilities. In addition, future research could

delve more deeply into reasons for the differences between elementary and high school teachers.

Further, researchers could look into whether community-building activities are more effective

when arranged by the teachers or by administrators. Finally, future research could use different

instrumentation, such as the measure modified from Gibson and Dembo (1984) by Coladarci and

Breton (1997) to use wording that specifically applies to special education.

Since research has shown a link between teacher attrition and burnout (Aloe et al., 2014;

Høigaard et al., 2012; Hong, 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014) and

burnout symptoms and low self-efficacy (Aloe et al., 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), further

study is needed to investigate the causes and preventative measures teachers and administrators

can take to avert burnout and attrition. Additionally, researchers correlated sense of community

and self-efficacy in some populations (Collie et al., 2012; Moolenaar et al., 2012). Hence, some

may think that strong sense of community would positively correlate to strong self-efficacy in

86

special education teachers as well. However, this study did not fully support that conclusion.

While there were positive correlations between sense of community and self-efficacy, the

relationships were minimal and therefore, not significant for the group of all special education

teachers or for high school special education teachers. The interaction between sense of

community and self-efficacy in elementary special education teachers was only moderate.

Further study has the potential to benefit the educational community by finding ways to increase

sense of community and self-efficacy and lower teacher turnover.

87

REFERENCES

Admiraal, W., & Lockhorst, D. (2012). The sense of community in school scale [Measurement

instrument]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/13665621211223360

Adeyemi-Bello, T. (2001). Validating rotter's (1966) locus of control scale with a sample of not-

for-profit leaders. Management Research News, 24(6), 25-34.

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of

special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17,

86-95.

Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and

curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Journal for Special

Educators, 16(4), 247-254.

Aloe, A., Amo, L., & Shanahan, M. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A

multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101-126.

doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0

Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’

thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational

Research, 34(2), 148-165.

Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., . . . & Zellman,

G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles

minority schools (Report No. R-2007- LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation

Retrieved from ERIC database (ED130243).

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and

student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.

88

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of

Management, 38(1), 9-44. doi:10.1177/0149206311410606

Beavans, K., Bradshaw, C., Meich, R., & Leaf, P. (2007). Staff-and school-level predictors of

school organizational health: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Health, 77, 294-

302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00210.x

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs

supporting educational change. Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and

continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation

Retrieved from ERIC database (ED140432).

Bettini, E., Benedict, A., Thomas, R., Kimerling, J., Choi, N., & McLeskey, J. (2016). Cultivating

a community of effective special education teachers local special education

administrators’ roles. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 111-126.

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1991). Teachers' decisions to transfer from special to general

education. The Journal of Special Education, 24(4), 496-511.

Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its

relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral

disorders. Education and Treatment of Children,36(4), 71-94.

Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy:

The case of lesson study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263-283.

89

Chu, S. (2011). Teacher perceptions of their efficacy for special education referral of students

from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Education, 132(1), 3-14.

Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. A. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education

resource-room teacher. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 230-239.

Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning:

Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 104(4), 1189-1204. doi:10.1037/a0029356

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Special Education. (2008). Special

Education Services and Programs State Regulations. http://www.education.pa.gov/k-

12/special%20education/pages/default.aspx

Conley, T. A. (2015). Teacher and principals' beliefs about self-efficacy and the effects on student

learning during school improvement: Perspectives from the field. Northcentral University.

ProQuest.com.

Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-

efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A

moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 106(2), 569.

Droogenbroeck, F. V., Spruyt, B., & Vanroelen, C. (2014). Burnout among senior teachers:

Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 43, 99-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.005

Dumay, X., & Galand, B. (2012). The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher

commitment: cognitive and motivational pathways. British Educational Research

Journal, 38(5), 703-729.

90

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?. Educational leadership, 61(8),

6-11.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational

psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2),

103-112.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of

efficacy scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 118-134.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change.

London, UK ; Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th

ed.).

New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years:

Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007-08 beginning teacher longitudinal

study. first look (NCES 2015-337). National Center for Education Statistics.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of

instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Høigaard, R., Giske, R., & Sundsli, K. (2012). Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and

teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to

quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 347-357.

91

Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to

instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),

774.

Hong, J. Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay?

Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching,

18(4), 417-440. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.696044.

Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Isbell, L., & Szabo, S. (2015). Assessment: Teacher efficacy and response to intervention. Delta

Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(2).

Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2013). Modifying schoolwork. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 215-223.

Jones, N. D., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. A. (2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping

the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children,

79(3), 365.

Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching

effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59-76.

Klein, S. (2004). Reducing special education paperwork. Principal, 58-60.

Kowalski, T. (2008). Case studies on educational administration (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Kraut, R., Chandler, T., & Hertenstein, K. (2016). The interplay of teacher training, access to

resources, years of experience and professional development in tertiary ESL reading

teachers’ perceived self-efficacy. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 12,

132-151.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-

efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online

92

education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001

Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and

general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education, 58(3), 241-255.

doi:10.1080/1034912x.2011.598397

Madrid, D. (2016). A case study of the influence of professional friendships among teachers on

teacher retention, school culture, teacher performance, and student performance

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Houston, TX: University of Houston.

Malinen, O. P., Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Xu, J., Nel, M., Nel, N., & Tlale, D. (2013).

Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 33, 34-44.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.

Martin, K. L., Buelow, S. M., & Hoffman, J. T. (2016). New teacher induction: Support that

impacts beginning middle-level educators. Middle School Journal, 47(1), 4-12.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal

stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McKnab, P. (1995). Attrition of special education personnel in Kansas from1993-94 to 1994-95.

Emporia, KS: Emporia State University, Division of Psychology and Special Education.

Retrieved from ERIC database (ED352754).

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal

of Community Psychology J. Community Psychol., 14(1), 6-23. doi:10.1002/1520-

6629(198601)14:13.0.co;2-i

93

Meijer, C., & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of

Special Education, 22(3), 378-385.

Mehrenberg, R. L. (2013). Red tape and green teachers: The impact of paperwork on novice

special education teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 80-87.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and

task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Mintzes, J. J., Marcum, B., Messerschmidt-Yates, C., & Mark, A. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy

in elementary science teaching with professional learning communities. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 24(7), 1201-1218.

Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration

networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education,

28(2), 251-262. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A

desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Moores-Abdool, W., & Voigt, J. (2013). Special Education Teachers: What Keeps Them in the

Field?.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1990, May). Special education

faces a mounting crisis: How to recruit, train, and hold on to qualified teachers and

related services personnel. Liaison Bullentin. Washington, DC: Author.

94

Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., & Mcmillan, D. W. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of

community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of

Community Psychology J. Community Psychol., 36(1), 61-73. doi:10.1002/jcop.20217

Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal

of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.

Rashidi, N., & Moghadam, M. (2014). The effect of teachers’ beliefs and sense of self-efficacy on

Iranian EFL learners’ satisfaction and academic achievement. Tesl-Ej, 18(2), 1-23.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian

Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, (2013). Statistics Guide. http://amandaszapkiw.com/elearning/statistics-

guide/downloads/Statistics-Guide.pdf

Rotter, J. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York City, NY: Prentice Hall.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in

asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.

Rovai, A. P., & Gallien Jr, L. B. (2005). Learning and sense of community: A comparative

analysis of African American and Caucasian online graduate students. The Journal of

Negro Education, 74(1), 53-62.

Sarıçam, H., & Sakız, H. (2014). Burnout and teacher self-efficacy among teachers working in

special education institutions in Turkey. Educational Studies, 40(4), 423-437.

doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.930340

95

Sass, D. A., Flores, B. B., Claeys, L., & Pérez, B. (2012). Identifying Personal and Contextual

Factors that Contribute to Attrition Rates for Texas Public School Teachers. education

policy analysis archives, 20(15), n15.

Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes

and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service

teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51-68.

doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.613603

Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Questioning the research on early career

teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 106-121.

Shaukat, S., & Iqbal, H. M. (2012). Teacher self-efficacy as a function of student engagement,

instructional strategies and classroom management. Pakistan Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, 9(3), 82-85.

Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know

and can do. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-36.

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain

factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of

relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the

teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional

96

exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1029-1038.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: relations

with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological

Reports, 114(1).

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of

engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession.

Creative Education, 7(13), 1785.

Skinner, B. (1948). Walden two. New York City, NY: Macmillan.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 85(4), 571.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special

education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process

of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

Steinhardt, M. A., Smith Jaggars, S. E., Faulk, K. E., & Gloria, C. T. (2011). Chronic work stress

and depressive symptoms: Assessing the mediating role of teacher burnout. Stress and

Health, 27(5), 420-429.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning

communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221-258.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1

97

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs

of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956.

Vieluf, S., Kunter, M., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2013). Teacher self-efficacy in cross-national

perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 92-103.

Vieno, A., Santinello, M., Pastore, M., & Perkins, D. D. (2007). Social support, sense of

community in school, and self‐efficacy as resources during early adolescence: an

integrative model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1-2), 177-190.

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2015). The effect of online collaboration on

adolescent sense of community in eighth-grade physical science. Journal of Science

Education and Technology, 24(5), 671-683.

Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Sources of teacher job satisfaction and dissatisfaction

in Cyprus. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36, 229-

247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920600741289

98

APPENDIX A

Hi Laura, It did cost me some time, sorry for that. My synchronization software made a mess out of it. But now it is ready. You can have a look and download the SCSS for you own use from my google website (see below). Let me know if this is not working. good luck and best wishes, Wilfried Wilfried Admiraal | Director | Full Professor of Educational Sciences

Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching | Leiden University

Willem Einthoven Building | Wassenaarseweg 62A | 2333 AL Leiden

PO BOX 805 | 2300 AX Leiden | the Netherlands

https://sites.google.com/site/wilfriedadmiraal/

99